format: text

text:
# The Stern-Gerlach interaction between a traveling particle and a time varying magnetic field

## 1 Introduction

The Stern-Gerlach force acts on particles, carrying a magnetic moment, which cross inhomogeneous magnetic fields. In a reference frame where particles are at rest, the expression of this force is

$$\stackrel{}{f}_{SG}=U$$
(1)
where

$$U=\stackrel{}{\mu }\stackrel{}{B}$$
(2)
is the magnetic potential energy, and

$$\stackrel{}{\mu }=g\frac{e}{2m}\stackrel{}{S}$$
(3)
is the magnetic moment. Here $`e=\pm 1.602\times 10^{19}\mathrm{C}`$ is the elementary charge with $`+`$ for $`p,e^+`$ and $``$ for $`\overline{p},e^{}`$, making $`\stackrel{}{\mu }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ either parallel or antiparallel, respectively. The rest mass, $`m`$, is $`1.67\times 10^{27}\mathrm{kg}`$ for $`p,\overline{p}`$ and $`9.11\times 10^{31}\mathrm{kg}`$ for $`e^\pm `$, and the relation between the gyromagnetic ratio $`g`$ and the anomaly $`a`$ is

$$a=\frac{g2}{2}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1.793(g=5.586)\mathrm{for}p,\overline{p}\hfill & \\ 1.160\times 10^3(g=2.002)fore^\pm \hfill & \end{array}$$
(4)
In the rest system, the quantum vector $`\stackrel{}{S}`$, named spin, has modulus $`|\stackrel{}{S}|=\sqrt{s(s+1)}\mathrm{}`$, and its component parallel to the magnetic field lines can take only the following values:

$$S_m=(s,s+1,\mathrm{}.,s1,s)\mathrm{},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{}=1.05\times 10^{34}\mathrm{Js}`$ the reduced Planck’s constant. Combining Eqs. (3) and (5) we obtain for a generic spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ fermion

$$\mu =|\stackrel{}{\mu }|=g\frac{|e|\mathrm{}}{4m}$$
(6)
or

$$\mu =\{\begin{array}{cc}1.41\times 10^{26}\mathrm{JT}^1\hfill & \\ 9.28\times 10^{24}\mathrm{JT}^1\hfill & \end{array}$$
(7)
Take note that the Bohr magneton is

$$\mu _B=2[\mu /g]_{\mathrm{electron}}=9.27\times 10^{24}\mathrm{JT}^1$$
(8)
Aiming to have the expression of the Stern-Gerlach force in the laboratory frame, we have first to carry out the Lorentz transformation of the electric and magnetic field from the laboratory frame, where we are at rest, to the center-of-mass frame, where particles are at rest and we can correctly evaluate such a force. Then this force must be boosted back to the laboratory frame. All of these rather cumbersome operations will be discussed in the next Section.

## 2 Lorentz Boost of a Force

In order to accomplish the sequence of Lorentz boosts more easily, we choose a Cartesian 4-dimensional Minkowski metric  $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=(x,y,z,ict)`$, where $`i=\sqrt{1}`$. Therefore, the back-and-forth Lorentz transformations between laboratory frame and particle’s rest frame (usually labeled with a prime) are the following:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x^{}\\ y^{}\\ z^{}\\ ict^{}\end{array}\right)=M\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\\ ict\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \gamma & i\beta \gamma \\ 0& 0& i\beta \gamma & \gamma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\\ ict\end{array}\right)\{\begin{array}{cc}x^{}=x\hfill & \\ y^{}=y\hfill & \\ z^{}=\gamma (z\beta ct)\hfill & \\ t^{}=\gamma \left(t\frac{\beta }{c}z\right)\hfill & \end{array}$$
(9)
$$\left\{\beta =|\stackrel{}{\beta }|=\frac{|\stackrel{}{v}|}{c},\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\beta ^2}}\right\}$$

and

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\\ ict\end{array}\right)=M^1\left(\begin{array}{c}x^{}\\ y^{}\\ z^{}\\ ict^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \gamma & i\beta \gamma \\ 0& 0& i\beta \gamma & \gamma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x^{}\\ y^{}\\ z^{}\\ ict^{}\end{array}\right)\{\begin{array}{cc}x=x^{}\hfill & \\ y=y^{}\hfill & \\ z=\gamma (z^{}+\beta ct^{})\hfill & \\ t=\gamma \left(t^{}+\frac{\beta }{c}z^{}\right)\hfill & \end{array}$$
(10)
Moreover, combining both eqs. (9) and (10), we obtain the following expressions for the partial derivatives:

$$\frac{}{x^{}}=\frac{}{x},\frac{}{y^{}}=\frac{}{y}$$
(11)
$$\frac{}{z^{}}=\gamma \left(\frac{}{z}+\frac{\beta }{c}\frac{}{t}\right)$$
(12)
The 4-vector formalism is still applied for undergoing the Lorentz transformation of a force. First of all, let us define as 4-velocity the quantity

$$u_\mu =\frac{dx_\mu }{d\tau }$$
(13)
where

$$d\tau =\frac{ds}{c}=\frac{dt}{\gamma }$$
(14)
is the differential of the proper time. We define the 4-momentum as the product of the rest mass $`m`$ times the 4-velocity, i.e.

$$P_\mu =mu_\mu =(\stackrel{}{p},i\gamma mc)$$
(15)
The 4-force is the derivative of the 4-momentum (15) with respect to the proper time, that is

$$F_\mu =\frac{dP_\mu }{d\tau }=(\gamma \frac{d\stackrel{}{p}}{dt},i\frac{\gamma }{c}\frac{d(\gamma mc^2)}{dt})=(\gamma \stackrel{}{f},i\frac{\gamma }{c}\frac{dE_{\mathrm{tot}}}{dt})$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{}{f}`$ is the ordinary force. In the c.m. system eq. (16) reduces to

$$F_\mu ^{}=(\stackrel{}{f}^{},0)$$
(17)
since $`\gamma ^{}=1`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}^{}=mc^2`$ is a constant. Bearing in mind the last step of the whole procedure, i.e. the boost of any force from rest to laboratory frame, we have to use the relation

$$F_\mu =M^1F_\mu ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma f_x\\ \gamma f_y\\ \gamma f_z\\ F_4\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \gamma & i\beta \gamma \\ 0& 0& i\beta \gamma & \gamma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}f_x^{}\\ f_y^{}\\ f_z^{}\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}f_x^{}\\ f_y^{}\\ \gamma f_z^{}\\ i\beta \gamma f_z^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
or

$$\stackrel{}{f}_{}=\frac{1}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{f}_{}^{}$$
(19)
$$\stackrel{}{f}_{}=\stackrel{}{f}_{}^{}(f_z=f_z^{})$$
(20)
## 3 Stern-Gerlach Force

The Stern-Gerlach force, as described by eq. (1), must be evaluated in the particle rest frame where it takes the form

$$\stackrel{}{f}_{SG}^{}=^{}(\stackrel{}{\mu }^{}\stackrel{}{B}^{})=\frac{}{x^{}}(\stackrel{}{\mu }^{}\stackrel{}{B}^{})\widehat{x}+\frac{}{y^{}}(\stackrel{}{\mu }^{}\stackrel{}{B}^{})\widehat{y}+\frac{}{z^{}}(\stackrel{}{\mu }^{}\stackrel{}{B}^{})\widehat{z}$$
(21)
having defined the magnetic moment as $`\mu ^{}`$, rather than $`\mu ^{}`$, for opportune reasons. By applying the transformations (11), (19) and (20), the force (21) is boosted to the laboratory system becoming

$$\stackrel{}{f}_{SG}=\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{}{x}(\stackrel{}{\mu }^{}\stackrel{}{B}^{})\widehat{x}+\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{}{y}(\stackrel{}{\mu }^{}\stackrel{}{B}^{})\widehat{y}+\frac{}{z^{}}(\stackrel{}{\mu }^{}\stackrel{}{B}^{})\widehat{z}$$
(22)
Bearing in mind the Lorentz transformation  of the fields $`\stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{E}^{},\stackrel{}{B}^{}`$

$$\stackrel{}{E}^{}=\gamma (\stackrel{}{E}+c\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{B})\frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma +1}\stackrel{}{\beta }(\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{E})$$
(23)
$$\stackrel{}{B}^{}=\gamma \left(\stackrel{}{B}\frac{\stackrel{}{\beta }}{c}\times \stackrel{}{E}\right)\frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma +1}\stackrel{}{\beta }(\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{B})$$
(24)
the energy $`(\stackrel{}{\mu }^{}\stackrel{}{B}^{})=\mu _xB_x^{}+\mu _yB_y^{}+\mu _zB_z^{}`$ becomes

$$(\stackrel{}{\mu }^{}\stackrel{}{B}^{})=\gamma \mu _x^{}\left(B_x+\frac{\beta }{c}E_y\right)+\gamma \mu _y^{}\left(B_y\frac{\beta }{c}E_x\right)+\mu _z^{}B_z$$
(25)
If we introduce eq. (25) into eq. (22) and take into account eq. (12), we can finally obtain the Stern-Gerlach force components in the laboratory frame:

$$f_x=\mu _x^{}\left(\frac{B_x}{x}+\frac{\beta }{c}\frac{E_y}{x}\right)+\mu _y^{}\left(\frac{B_y}{x}\frac{\beta }{c}\frac{E_x}{x}\right)+\frac{1}{\gamma }\mu _z^{}\frac{B_z}{x}$$
(26)
$$f_y=\mu _x^{}\left(\frac{B_x}{y}+\frac{\beta }{c}\frac{E_y}{y}\right)+\mu _y^{}\left(\frac{B_y}{y}\frac{\beta }{c}\frac{E_x}{y}\right)+\frac{1}{\gamma }\mu _z^{}\frac{B_z}{y}$$
(27)
$$f_z=\mu _x^{}C_{zx}+\mu _y^{}C_{zy}+\mu _z^{}C_{zz}$$
(28)
with

$$C_{zx}=\gamma ^2\left[\left(\frac{B_x}{z}+\frac{\beta }{c}\frac{B_x}{t}\right)+\frac{\beta }{c}\left(\frac{E_y}{z}+\frac{\beta }{c}\frac{E_y}{t}\right)\right]$$
(29)
$$C_{zy}=\gamma ^2\left[\left(\frac{B_y}{z}+\frac{\beta }{c}\frac{B_y}{t}\right)\frac{\beta }{c}\left(\frac{E_x}{z}+\frac{\beta }{c}\frac{E_x}{t}\right)\right]$$
(30)
$$C_{zz}=\gamma \left(\frac{B_z}{z}+\frac{\beta }{c}\frac{B_z}{t}\right)$$
(31)
## 4 The Rectangular Cavity

In order to simplify our calculations without loosing the general physical meaning, we shall consider a rectangular resonator, as the one shown in Fig.1, which is characterized  by the following field components:

$$B_x=\frac{B_0}{K_c^2}\left(\frac{m\pi }{a}\right)\left(\frac{p\pi }{d}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{m\pi x}{a}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{n\pi y}{b}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega t$$
(32)
$$B_y=\frac{B_0}{K_c^2}\left(\frac{n\pi }{b}\right)\left(\frac{p\pi }{d}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{m\pi x}{a}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{n\pi y}{b}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega t$$
(33)
$$B_z=B_0\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{m\pi x}{a}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{n\pi y}{b}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{p\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega t$$
(34)
$$E_x=B_0\left(\frac{n\pi }{b}\right)\frac{\omega }{K_c^2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{m\pi x}{a}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{n\pi y}{b}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{p\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{sin}\omega t$$
(35)
$$E_y=B_0\left(\frac{n\pi }{b}\right)\frac{\omega }{K_c^2}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{m\pi x}{a}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{n\pi y}{b}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{p\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{sin}\omega t$$
(36)
$$E_z=0(\mathrm{as}\mathrm{typical}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{TE}\mathrm{mode})$$
(37)
where $`B_0`$ is the amplitude of the $`B_z`$-component and

$$K_c=\sqrt{\left(\frac{m\pi }{a}\right)^2+\left(\frac{n\pi }{b}\right)^2}$$
(38)
$$\frac{\omega }{c}=K=\frac{2\pi }{\lambda }=\sqrt{\left(\frac{m\pi }{a}\right)^2+\left(\frac{n\pi }{b}\right)^2+\left(\frac{p\pi }{d}\right)^2}$$
(39)
The wave’s phase velocity is $`v_{\mathrm{ph}}=\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}c`$ where

$$\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}=\frac{K}{\sqrt{K^2K_c^2}}=\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{md}{pa}\right)^2+\left(\frac{nd}{pb}\right)^2}$$
(40)
We have to recall that the polarization of a beam, revolving in a ring whose guide field is $`\stackrel{}{B}_{\mathrm{ring}}`$, can be defined as

$$P=\frac{N_{}N_{}}{N_{}+N_{}}$$
(41)
where $`N_{}`$ = No. Particles Spin Up (e.g. parallel to $`\stackrel{}{B}_{\mathrm{ring}}`$)
$`N_{}`$ = No. Particles Spin Down (antiparallel to $`\stackrel{}{B}_{\mathrm{ring}}`$)

and $`P`$ indicates the macroscopic average over the particle distribution in the beam, which is equivalent to the quantum mechanical expectation value found by means of the quantum statistical matrix. Obviously, an unpolarized beam has $`P=0`$ or $`N_{}`$ = $`N_{}`$.

A quick comparison among the SG-force components, given by the set of equations (26)-(31), suggests that $`f_z`$ will dominate at high energy, since it contains terms proportional to $`\gamma ^2`$, whereas the transverse components have terms independent of $`\gamma `$, not to mention the $`\gamma ^1`$ terms.

The most appropriate choice of the spin orientation seems to be the one parallel to $`\widehat{y}`$ i.e. to $`\stackrel{}{B}_{\mathrm{ring}}`$, i.e. the force component is the one given by eq. (28) with the insertion of eq. (30). This means that particles undergoing energy gain (or loss) don’t need any spin rotation while entering and leaving the rf cavity, beyond the advantage of having to deal with a force component proportional to $`\gamma ^2`$. Choosing the simplest $`\mathrm{TE}_{011}`$ mode, the quantities (38), (39) and (40) reduce to

$$k_c=\frac{\pi }{b}$$
(42)
$$\omega =c\sqrt{\left(\frac{\pi }{b}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\pi }{d}\right)^2}$$
(43)
$$\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}=\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{d}{b}\right)^2}$$
(44)
Setting $`x=\frac{a}{2}`$ and $`y=\frac{b}{2}`$ the field components along the beam axis become

$$B_x=B_z=0$$
(45)
$$B_y=B_0\frac{b}{d}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega t$$
(46)
$$E_x=\omega B_0\frac{b}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{sin}\omega t$$
(47)
$$E_y=E_z=0$$
(48)
therefore the force component $`f_z`$ can be written as

$$f_z=\mu ^{}\gamma ^2B_0b\left\{\frac{1}{\pi }\left[\left(\frac{\pi }{d}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\beta \omega }{c}\right)^2\right]\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega t+\frac{2}{d}\left(\frac{\beta \omega }{c}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{sin}\omega t\right\}$$
(49)
For completeness, we shall also analyze the possibility of using a spin orientation parallel to $`\widehat{z}`$, i.e. to the motion direction, even though this option requires a system of spin rotators and looses a factor of $`\gamma `$ in the force component.

## 5 Involved Energy

The energy gained, or lost, by a particle with a magnetic moment after having crossed a rf cavity can be evaluated by integrating the Stern-Gerlach force (22) over the cavity length, namely:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U=_0^d𝑑U=_0^d\stackrel{}{f}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}=_0^df_z𝑑z=_0^d\mu ^{}C_{zy}𝑑z$$
(50)
Bearing in mind eq. (49) and carrying out the trivial substitution $`\omega t=\frac{\omega z}{\beta c}`$, the integral (50) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U=\mu ^{}\gamma ^2B_0b\left\{\frac{1}{\pi }\left[\left(\frac{\pi }{d}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\beta \omega }{c}\right)^2\right]I_1+\frac{2}{d}\left(\frac{\beta \omega }{c}\right)I_2\right\}$$

with

$$I_1=_0^d\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\omega z}{\beta c}\right)𝑑z=\frac{\frac{\pi }{d}}{\left(\frac{\pi }{d}\right)^2\left(\frac{\omega }{\beta c}\right)^2}\left[1+\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\omega d}{\beta c}\right)\right]$$

$$I_2=_0^d\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega z}{\beta c}\right)𝑑z=\frac{\frac{\omega }{\beta c}}{\left(\frac{\pi }{d}\right)^2\left(\frac{\omega }{\beta c}\right)^2}\left[1+\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\omega d}{\beta c}\right)\right]$$

or

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U=\mu ^{}\gamma ^2B_0\frac{b}{d}\frac{\left(\frac{\pi }{d}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\beta \omega }{c}\right)^22\left(\frac{\omega }{c}\right)^2}{\left(\frac{\pi }{d}\right)^2\left(\frac{\omega }{\beta c}\right)^2}\left[1+\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\omega d}{\beta c}\right)\right]$$
(51)
Taking into account the stationary wave conditions (eqs. 43 and 44) pertaining to the $`\mathrm{TE}_{011}`$ mode, the length of the cavity can be expressed as

$$d=\frac{1}{2}\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}\lambda $$
(52)
which allows us to write eq. (51) as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U=\gamma ^2\beta ^2\mu ^{}B_0\frac{b}{d}\frac{1+\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}^2(\beta ^22)}{\beta ^2\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}^2}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}}{\beta }\pi \right)$$
(53)
In the ultrarelativistic limit ($`\gamma 1`$ and $`\beta 1`$),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U\mu ^{}B_0\frac{b}{d}\gamma ^2(1+\mathrm{cos}\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}\pi )=2\mu ^{}B_0\frac{b}{d}\gamma ^2(\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}=\text{even integer})$$
(54)
As hinted before, let us evaluate the work-energy integral when the particle enters into the cavity with its spin parallel to $`\widehat{z}`$. In this example we must choose the mode $`\mathrm{TE}_{021}`$ as the lowest one; then we have from eqs. (34) and (31) respectively

$$B_z=B_0\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega t$$
(55)
$$f_z=\mu ^{}C_{zz}=\mu ^{}\gamma B_0\left[\frac{\pi }{d}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega t\left(\frac{\beta \omega }{c}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega t\right]$$
(56)
and proceeding as above we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U=\mu ^{}B_0\gamma \frac{\pi }{d}\frac{\frac{\omega }{\beta c}\frac{\beta c}{\omega }}{\left(\frac{\pi }{d}\right)^2\left(\frac{\omega }{\beta c}\right)^2}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega d}{\beta c}\right)$$
(57)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U=\frac{\mu ^{}B_0}{\gamma }\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}\beta }{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}^2\beta ^2}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}}{\beta }\pi \right)$$
(58)
or ultrarelativistically

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U\frac{\mu ^{}B_0}{\gamma }\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}}{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}^21}\mathrm{sin}\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}\pi ,\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\mathrm{max}}1.62\frac{\mu ^{}B_0}{\gamma }(\text{when }\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}1.13)$$
(59)
confirming a result  already achieved.

Before making up our mind, we need to compare the energy gain/loss due to the Stern-Gerlach interaction with the same quantity caused by the electric field. To this aim, we emphasize that

$$dU_E=\stackrel{}{f}_Ed\stackrel{}{r}=eE_xdx$$
(60)
as can be easily understood looking at eqs. (47) and (48). Since the carrier particle travels from 0 to $`d`$ along the $`z`$-axis, the only integral which makes sense is the following:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_E=_0^deE_x𝑑x=_0^deE_x\frac{dx}{dz}𝑑z=_0^deE_xx^{}𝑑z$$
(61)
or

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_E=x^{}e\omega B_0\frac{b}{\pi }_0^d\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi z}{d}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega z}{\beta c}\right)𝑑z=x^{}e\omega B_0\frac{b}{d}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega d}{\beta c}\right)}{\left(\frac{\pi }{d}\right)^2\left(\frac{\omega }{\beta c}\right)^2}$$

or

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_E=\left[e\omega B_0\frac{bd}{\pi ^2}\frac{\beta ^2}{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}^2\beta ^2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}}{\beta }\pi \right]x^{}=\kappa x^{}$$
(62)
having proceeded as before.

We recall that the Stern-Gerlach interaction in the realm of particle accelerators has been proposed either for separating in energy particles with opposite spin states, the well known  spin-splitter concept, or for settling an absolute polarimeter .

As far as the spin-splitter is concerned, we quickly recall that spin up particles receive (or loose) that amount of energy given by eq. (54) at each rf cavity crossing, and this will take place all over the time required. Simultaneously, spin down particles behave exactly in the opposite way, i.e. they loose (or gain) the same amount of energy turn after turn. The actual most important issue is that the energy exchanges sum up coherently. More quantitatively, we may indicate as the final energy separation after $`N`$ revolutions:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=\{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{})\}=4\frac{b}{d}N\mu ^{}B_0\gamma ^24N\mu ^{}B_0\gamma ^2$$
(63)
Instead, the adding up of the energy contribution (62) due to the electric field is

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }U_E)_{tot}=\mathrm{\Delta }U_E=\kappa x^{}=0$$
(64)
since $`x^{}`$ changes continuously its sign with a periodicity related to the period of the betatron oscillations.

The result (63), together with the demonstration (64), would seem to provide very good news for the spin-splitter method!

As far as the polarimeter is concerned, we have to bear in mind that we are interested in the instantaneous interaction between magnetic moment and the rf fields: therefore the zero-averaging due to the incoherence of the betatron oscillations would not help us. Notwithstanding, if we set $`\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ equal to an integer in eq. (62), we have for U.R. particles:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_E=\frac{x^{}e\omega B_0bd}{\pi ^2(\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}^21)}\mathrm{sin}\left(\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}\pi +\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}\pi }{2\gamma ^2}\right)\pm \frac{x^{}bd}{2\pi }\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}}{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}^21}\frac{e\omega B_0}{\gamma ^2}$$
(65)
Then this $`1/\gamma ^2`$ dependence of the spurious signal, compared to the $`\gamma ^2`$ dependence of the signal (54) to be measured, sounds interesting for the feasibility of this kind of polarimeter; however, one must realize that if $`\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is not exactly an integer, then eq. (65) would become

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_E\pm \frac{x^{}bd}{2\pi }\frac{e\omega B_0}{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}^21}\left(ϵ+\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}}{\gamma ^2}\right)$$
(66)
where $`ϵ`$ is the error in $`\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}`$.

## 6 A Few Numerical Examples

The spin-splitter principle requires a repetitive crossing of $`N_{\mathrm{cav}}`$ cavities distributed along the ring, each of them resonating in the TE mode. After each revolution, the particle experiences a variation, or kick, of its energy or of its momentum spread

$$\zeta =\frac{\delta p}{p}=\frac{1}{\beta ^2}\frac{\delta E}{E}\frac{N_{\mathrm{cav}}\mathrm{\Delta }U}{E}\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3}N_{\mathrm{cav}}\frac{B_0}{B_{\mathrm{}}}\gamma $$
(67)
having made use of eq. (54), further simplified by reasonably setting $`\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}=2`$, and with

$$B_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{mc^2}{\mu ^{}}=\frac{1.503\times 10^{10}\mathrm{J}}{1.41\times 10^{26}\mathrm{JT}^1}10^{16}\mathrm{T}$$
(68)
for (anti)protons. From eq. (67) we may find as the number of turns needed for attaining a momentum separation equal to 2$`\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{p}\right)`$

$$N_{\mathrm{SS}}=\frac{\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{p}\right)}{\zeta }=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2N_{\mathrm{cav}}\gamma }\frac{B_{\mathrm{}}}{B_0}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{p}\right)$$
(69)
Multiplying $`N_{\mathrm{SS}}`$ by the revolution period $`\tau _{\mathrm{rev}}`$ we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=N_{\mathrm{SS}}\tau _{\mathrm{rev}}$$
(70)
as the actual time spent in this operation. For the sake of having some data, we consider RHIC  and HERA  whose essential parameters are shown in Table I together with what can be found by making use of eqs. (69) and (70) where $`B_00.1T`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{cav}}=200`$ are chosen as realistic values.

Table I: RHIC and HERA parameters

|  | RHIC | HERA |
| --- | --- | --- |
| E(GeV) | 250 | 820 |
| $`\gamma `$ | 266.5 | 874.2 |
| $`\tau _{\mathrm{rev}}(\mu \mathrm{s})`$ | 12.8 | 21.1 |
| $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{p}`$ | $`4.1\times 10^3`$ | $`5\times 10^5`$ |
| $`N_{\mathrm{SS}}`$ | $`6.67\times 10^9`$ | $`2.48\times 10^7`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ | $`8.52\times 10^4s\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}23.7}h`$ | 523 s |

In the example of the polarimeter we have to pick up a signal generated at each cavity crossing. Therefore, making use of eq. (54) we have for a bunch train made up of $`N`$ particles the total energy transfer

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U2NP\mu ^{}B_0\frac{b}{d}\gamma ^2$$
(71)
where $`P`$ is the beam polarization slightly modified with respect the definition (41)

$$P=\frac{N_{}N_{}}{N_{}+N_{}}$$
(72)
The average power transferred will be

$$W=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }U}{\tau _{\mathrm{rev}}}$$
(73)
If we operate our cavity as a parametric converter , with an initially empty level, we have for the power transferred to this empty level

$$W_2=\frac{\omega _{\mathrm{rf}}}{\omega _{\mathrm{rev}}}W=\frac{\nu _{\mathrm{rf}}}{\nu _{\mathrm{rev}}}W$$
(74)
where $`\nu _{\mathrm{rf}}`$ is the working frequency of the resonant cavity (typically in the GHz range), and $`\nu _{\mathrm{rev}}`$ is the revolution frequency. Putting all together we have

$$W_22P\frac{\nu _{\mathrm{rf}}}{\nu _{\mathrm{rev}}}\mu ^{}B_0\frac{b}{d}\gamma ^2$$
(75)
A feasibility test of the polarimeter principle has been proposed  and studied  to be carried out in the 500 MeV electron ring  of MIT- Bates, whose main characteristics are

Table II: MIT-Bates parameters

| $`\tau _{\mathrm{rev}}`$ | 634 nsec |
| --- | --- |
| $`\nu _{\mathrm{rev}}`$ | 1.576 MHz |
| $`N_{electrons}`$ | $`3.6\times 10^8225=8.1\times 10^{10}`$ |
| $`\gamma `$ | $`10^3`$ |
| $`b/d`$ | $`\sqrt{3}/3`$ |
| $`B_0`$ | $`0.1`$ T |
| $`\nu _{\mathrm{rf}}/\nu _{\mathrm{rev}}`$ | $`10^3`$ |
| $`\mu ^{}`$ | $`9.27\times 10^{24}\mathrm{JT}^1`$ |

and, since polarized electrons can be injected into this ring but precessing on a horizontal plane, the $`\mathrm{TE}_{101}`$ mode is more appropriate than the $`\mathrm{TE}_{011}`$ as we shall have to use $`B_x`$ rather than $`B_y`$: a choice that does not make any substantial difference! From the above data we obtain

$$W_2137P\mathrm{watts}$$
(76)
Paradoxically, even for an almost unpolarized beam with $`N_{}N_{}=1`$ and, as a consequence of eq. (72), with $`P1.23\times 10^{11}`$, we should obtain $`W_21.7\mathrm{nW}`$, which can be easily measured.

As a last check, let us compare the energy exchanges ($`\stackrel{}{\mu }\stackrel{}{B}`$) and ($`e\stackrel{}{E}`$). Taking into account eqs. (52), (54) and (65), and setting $`x^{}1\mathrm{mrad}`$, $`\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}=2`$ and $`\lambda =10\mathrm{cm}`$, we have for the Bates-MIT ring:

$$r=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }U_E}{\mathrm{\Delta }U}=\frac{x^{}}{8}\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}^3}{\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}^21}\frac{\lambda ec}{\mu ^{}}\frac{1}{\gamma ^4}=1.72\times 10^4$$
(77)
i.e. the spurious signal, depending upon the electric interaction between $`e`$ and $`\stackrel{}{E}`$, is absolutely negligible with respect the measurable signal generated by the magnetic interaction.

## 7 Conclusions

There is not too much to add to what has been found in the previous Sections, aside from performing more accurate calculations and numerical simulations. The Stern-Gerlach interaction seems very promising either for attaining the self polarization of a $`p(\overline{p})`$ beam or for realizing an absolute polarimeter.

In the first example the problem raised  by the rf filamentation still holds on, although some tricks can be conceived: the extreme one could be the implementation of a triangular waveform in the TM cavity which bunches the beam.

The second example requires nothing but to implement that experimental test at the Bates-MIT electron ring.


text:
# Mass Loss On the Horizontal Branch: an Application to NGC 6791

## 1. Introduction

Understanding the origin and evolution of hot horizontal branch (HB) stars would have a significant impact on several areas of astronomy. For example, it is important in the study of globular cluster HB morphology, which constrains the formation history of the Galaxy (Searle & Zinn 1978). The global picture of HB morphology appears to be well understood. HB morphology is most affected by the metallicity of the cluster: more metal rich clusters exhibit redder HBs (“the first parameter” of HB morphology). However, observations in some globular clusters show HBs which exhibit color distributions not expected for their metallicities. To explain this deviation, a “second parameter” is invoked.

Age has been the most successful global candidate for the ”second parameter” (Searle & Zinn 1978; Lee, Demarque, & Zinn 1994; for recent review, see Stetson, VandenBerg, & Bolte 1996; Sarajedini, Chaboyer, & Demarque 1997). However, recent observations show an increasing number of HB morphologies with anomalous features, e.g. bimodality in the color (temperature) distribution, extended blue tails, and gaps (e.g., Sosin et al. 1997; Rich et al. 1997; Catelan et al. 1998). Most of these anomalies are found near the blue end of the HB. Within the framework of the canonical theory of single star evolution, they appear to be inconsistent with a scenario where metallicity and age are the only two parameters that govern the HB morphology.

NGC 6791 is an extreme example that exhibits deviations from the first and second parameter phenomena. This open cluster is believed to be extremely metal-rich, \[Fe/H\] $`=0.2`$ – 0.5 (Friel & Janes 1993; Kaluzny & Rucinski 1995; Peterson & Green 1998), which would suggest a predominantly red HB clump, following the first parameter phenomenon. Yet, nearly a third of its helium burning population (HB stars) are extremely blue (Liebert et al. 1994; Green et al. 1997) with a large temperature separation from the red clump. Dynamical effects do not seem to provide a promising explanation for this anomaly, because stellar densities are small in open clusters.

Figure 1 shows the observed color-magnitude diagram (CMD) and a synthetic HB model based on canonical stellar models. The observed CMD of NGC 6791, which is from Kaluzny & Rucinski (1995), shows approximately 23 red clump stars and 9 hot stars. These hot stars have also been identified by ultraviolet (UV) observations using the Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (Landsman et al. 1998). The synthetic HB (diamonds) is based on the arbitrarily chosen chemical composition, i.e. \[Fe/H\]$`=0.33`$ and $`Y=0.31`$ (equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y/\mathrm{\Delta }Z=1.5`$). For illustrative purposes, a 9 Gyr isochrone from the main sequence (MS) to the red giant branch (RGB), is shown on the same plot. For $`E(BV)=0.125`$ and $`mM=13.35`$, the match is reasonable. It is beyond the scope of this paper to derive the age of this cluster or any other parameters by matching the CMD with isochrones.

For the synthetic HB construction, we have assumed a Gaussian mass dispersion parameter $`\sigma _{HB}=0.04M_{}`$, and a Reimers mass loss parameter $`\eta =1.0`$ (Lamers & Cassinelli 1999; Willson, Bowen, & Struck 1996). Readers are referred to Yi, Demarque, & Oemler (1997b) for details of the synthetic HB construction. We assume that there are approximately 32 HB stars in NGC 6791, and we have added some random scatter in both $`M_V`$ and $`BV`$. The model reproduces, in accordance with the first parameter phenomenon, the prominent red clump seen in the data, but it lacks hot stars.

NGC 6791 is the oldest Galactic open cluster known to-date at 6.5-9 Gyr (Demarque, Green, & Guenther 1992; Phelps et al. 1994; Garvanich et al. 1994; Chaboyer, Green, & Liebert 1999). The most recent estimate from Chaboyer et al. (1999) suggests $`8.0\pm 0.5`$ Gyr for the age of this cluster. However, even at the largest age estimate so far (9 Gyr), a synthetic HB based on the conventional input parameters would not reproduce anything even close to the HB morphology of NGC 6791. By increasing its age by a couple of Gyrs, we could produce some hot HB stars, but their numbers would still be much smaller than observed. Thus, the age effect alone seems unsuccessful in explaining the HB color distribution.

A relatively large value of the dispersion ($`\sigma =0.06M_{}`$, in comparison to the conventional value 0.03 – 0.04) in the Gaussian mass distribution on the HB would result in a larger fraction of hot HB stars. This may match the blue-to-red HB star ratio found in NGC 6791 better, but the strong color-bimodality in NGC 6791 would not be reproduced.

One or more local parameters must be at work in this cluster. As candidate mechanisms that produce hot HB stars, a few additional scenarios have been proposed lately. Sweigart (1997) has suggested that helium mixing on the red giant branch would cause further evolution beyond the tip, resulting in higher mass loss on the giant branch. As the color dispersion on the HB is the result of varying envelope masses, the enhanced mass loss results in a bluer HB. D’Cruz et al. (1997) assumed an episode of extreme mass loss at the tip of the giant branch to explain blue HB stars.

Fig. 1 Observed CMD of NGC 6791 and a synthetic HB model. Note the presence of hot HB stars (enclosed in a box) only in the observed CMD.

In this letter, we explore yet another possible formation scenario for blue HB stars: mass loss during the core helium burning phase. Demarque & Eder (1985) first investigated this effect for low metallicity HB stars, and we extend on their work here. We will show that the inclusion of mass loss on the HB works in the direction of explaining the color distribution of the HB stars in NGC 6791.

## 2. Evolutionary Model Construction

We used the Yale stellar evolution code (YREC) for the construction of HB evolutionary models. The detail of physics are the same as in Guenther et al. (1992) with the addition of updated opacities. For log $`T4.00`$, OPAL opacities are used (Iglesias & Rogers 1996), and Alexander low temperature opacities are used for log $`T<4.00`$ (Alexander & Ferguson 1994). The ratio $`(\alpha )`$ of the mixing length to pressure scale height in the convection zone, was assumed to be 1.9, which is the value used in a standard solar model with the same input physics (Guenther et al. 1992). This parameter only affects the radii of the very coolest models, and has little impact on our conclusions. Although He diffusion and complex heavy element segregation processes are known to take place in the atmospheres of sdB and sdO stars (Michaud, Vauclair, & Vauclair 1983; Michaud et al. 1985; Unglaub & Bues 1998), their effect to the internal structure and radius calculation is negligible.

In addition, a mass-loss routine was included into YREC. As we propose no mechanism for mass loss, and any empirical mass loss rate, such as Reimers mass loss (which is based on red supergiant observations), does not apply here, the simplest approach was taken. The mass loss rate, which is supplied by the user, is assumed to be constant over time, and is used to determine the amount of mass loss for a given time step. This mass is then removed from the envelope, which is taken here to be the region of the hydrogen burning shell and outward, at each time step. The model is then allowed to evolve with its new mass. The energy needed to eject the mass against the gravitational field is also calculated and removed from the envelope (see also, Koopmann et al. 1994 and Demarque & Eder 1985).

While mass loss on the HB is an ad hoc assumption, it is possible to justify at least some mass loss. Mass loss is directly observed in the Sun at a rate of $`10^{14}M_{}yr^1`$. It has also been pointed out that mass loss should be enhanced in pulsating stars (Willson 1988). As RR Lyrae stars are pulsators on the horizontal branch, one should expect some mass loss in these stars. There is also both observational and theoretical evidence for pulsation in hot horizontal branch stars. Recent observations show that sdB stars pulsate as well (Kilkenny et al. 1998 and references therein). This pulsation was predicted theoretically by Charpinet et al. (1997a, 1997b). The effect of mass loss in HB stars while they evolve through the instability strip was studied by Koopmann et al. (1994). They found that the mass loss rate has an upper limit of $`10^9M_{}yr^1`$. A higher mass loss rate would break the good agreement between synthetic and observed HBs in the globular cluster M4. This provides an upper limit for the mass loss rate on the HB in the intermediate temperature (RR Lyrae) region.

HB stars hotter than RR Lyrae variables may be in conditions under which larger mass loss may take place. According to Abbott’s formula (1982), the mass loss rate for these stars for the solar composition should be around 2 – 4 $`10^{12}M_{}yr^1`$. We can think of two effects which should increase this number. The first is the fact that the sdB stars pulsate. Second is that the mass loss rate should scale with the metallicity (Abbott 1982; Willson et al. 1996; Lamers & Cassinelli 1999), so the assumption of higher mass loss rate in more metal rich stars, such as the blue HB stars in NGC 6791, could be justified. Although it would be very difficult to observe directly such low mass loss rates in HB stars, there is spectroscopic evidence which supports the presence of mass loss in sdB and sdO atmospheres. The abundance anomalies observed in the atmospheres of sdB and sdO stars, and their lifetimes, can only be explained when the interaction of both diffusion and mass loss are taken into account (Michaud et al. 1983, 1985; Unglaub & Bues 1998 for the sdO stars). More detailed spectroscopy and atmospheric modeling in the future will reveal the time dependence and intensity of these winds.

The mass loss rates used for the present study are in the range $`10^{10}\dot{M}(M_{}yr^1)10^9`$. Models have been constructed for the metallicity range of $`0.004Z0.1`$ and approximately for $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y/\mathrm{\Delta }Z=1.5`$ and 3.

The isochrones for the hydrogen burning phases that we have used in this paper are the Sukyoung Yi version of the Yale Isochrones (Yi, Demarque, & Oemler 1997b; available from http://shemesh.gsfc.nasa.gov). The input physics used in these isochrones are somewhat older than the ones used in our HB models, but they are qualitatively compatible to our HB models.

## 3. Results and Discussion

In order to study the possibility of forming blue HB stars through mass loss during the HB phase of stellar evolution, we have constructed evolutionary tracks for HB stars of varying metallicity and envelope mass. Figure 2 shows HB evolutionary tracks and 6 hot stars in NGC 6791 whose temperatures and luminosities have been measured by Landsman et al. (1998) based on their UV fluxes. The track furthest to the right is the evolutionary track without mass loss and each successive track to the left has a larger mass loss rate; $`10^{10}`$, $`10^{9.5}`$, $`10^9M_{}yr^1`$, respectively. The effect of mass loss shown in Figure 2 is representative of the effects of mass loss in the other models calculated. Several points can be made by examining Figure 2. First, the greater the mass loss rate assumed, the hotter the star becomes. This is not a surprising result. It is generally believed that the HB is a sequence of stars which have the same core mass and varying envelope masses. The smaller the envelope mass, the hotter the star appears, as a deeper and hotter region is exposed with a smaller envelope. It seems natural then that mass loss during the HB phase will produce hotter stars with smaller envelopes.

Fig. 2 Evolutionary tracks for stars starting on the zero-age HB for Z=0.04, $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y/\mathrm{\Delta }Z=3`$ and envelope mass of $`0.07M_{}`$. The tracks of $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y/\mathrm{\Delta }Z=1.5`$ show qualitatively the same phenomenon. The zero-age HB locus, which is insensitive to the adopted mass loss rate, is shown near the bottom of the plot. Tracks with increasing mass loss rates are shifted toward the hotter and fainter regions of the H-R diagram. The crosses indicate time intervals of $`10^7`$ years. Also shown are the hot stars in NGC 6791 whose temperatures and luminosities have been measured from their UV fluxes (Landsman et al. 1998).

At the same time, a larger mass loss rate also results in the stars becoming fainter than the stars without mass loss, particularly for the larger mass loss rates. As our mass loss scheme removes mass from the envelope, which is defined to be the hydrogen burning shell and outwards, the total amount of hydrogen burning is reduced. This results in the stars evolving with smaller luminosities. Figure 2 shows that the atmospheric properties of the hot stars in NGC 6791 (diamonds) are well matched by the theoretical models with mass loss if their envelope masses are approximately $`0.07M_{}`$. If there is no mass loss on the HB, their properties can be matched only if their envelope masses are as small as $`0.001M_{}`$ (the filled star symbol at log $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}4.4`$ and log L/L$`{}_{}{}^{}1.1`$). Whether HB stars can be born with such low envelope masses at all has been questioned by many groups: “the minimum envelope mass hypothesis” (see the discussion in §3.2 of Yi et al. 1997b). With mass loss on the HB, one can match the observed data without violating the minimum envelope mass hypothesis.

Fig. 3 Comparison of evolutionary tracks for a constant metallicity Z=0.04 and varying envelope masses. Mass loss has a more profound effect on low envelope mass stars.

It should be noted that the adoption of mass loss on the HB does not change the zero-age HB locus at all in our scenario, because we are only comparing the tracks with and without mass loss when they begin their HB evolution at the same location in the CMD.

The inclusion of mass loss on the HB also contributes to the wide color distribution in the HB of NGC 6791. Figure 3 shows evolutionary tracks for HB stars with varying envelope masses. Each panel is for a given envelope mass with four mass loss rates plotted for each. The composition for this particular set of models is $`Z=0.04`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y/\mathrm{\Delta }Z=3`$. Mass loss has little effect to the evolution of the HB stars with large envelope masses but significantly affects that of less massive stars. This mass dependency would generate a wider color distribution in the HB. It may even create a color bimodality (or multimodality), as seen in the hot ends of the HBs of several globular clusters, if the mass dependency is not a smooth function of mass. This may explain the lack of intermediate HB stars in NGC 6791. A more detailed modeling will show if this is a plausible explanation to the case of NGC 6791.

The effects of such mass loss in the HB phase have an impact on the study of ultraviolet spectral evolution of old stellar populations as well. Numerical studies by Demarque and Pinsonneault (1988) and by Horch, Demarque, & Pinsonneault (1992) suggested that in the advanced evolution of metal rich HB stars, stars with small envelopes evolve to become UV bright objects, the so-called slow blue phase (SBP) stars, rather than evolving into asymptotic giant branch stars (c.f. the AGB-manqué stars in Greggio & Renzini 1990). Yi, Demarque & Kim (1997a) elaborated on the theory and found a theoretical explanation to the SBP phenomenon and to its metallicity dependence, that is, the transitional mass (the maximum mass of a star that becomes a SBP star) increasing with metallicity. According to this theory, more metal-rich stars become UV bright SBP stars more easily.

With the additional mass loss on the HB that we consider in this paper, stars would become SBP stars even more easily. Moreover, if mass loss on the HB increases with increasing metallicity and increasing effective temperature, as various studies suggest, it would cause metal-rich stellar populations to develop UV bright stars more quickly. Because SBP stars are considered important UV sources in elliptical galaxies (e.g., Tantalo et al. 1996; Yi et al. 1997a; O’Connell 1999) and the UV flux of elliptical galaxies may constrain the ages of galaxies (Yi et al. 1999), this study has an impact on extragalactic astronomy. Landsman et al. (1998) already pointed out that a population like NGC 6791 would exhibit a UV upturn with the magnitude shown in giant elliptical galaxies. If mass loss on the HB indeed contributes to the production of hot stars in the metal-rich environments, our current age estimates of giant elliptical galaxies are likely to be systematically overestimated.

We should point out that there is no direct observational evidence for mass loss as substantial as we have assumed to occur on the HB. In fact, besides Koopmann et al.’s upper limit on the mass loss rate on the HB ($`10^9M_{}yr^1`$), the diffusion study of Michaud et al. (1985) set a more strict upper limit of $`10^{14}M_{}yr^1`$. They suggest that if mass loss rate is larger than this it would be difficult to reproduce the silicon underabundance observed in sdB stars. If this is true, the mass loss rates investigated in our study may be too large to justify, unless mass loss rate increases substantially in the metal-rich regime. Once again, we do not advocate any value or mechanism for the mass loss on the HB. Instead, we wanted to see what level of mass loss rate on the HB would be needed if it is the only process that is responsible for the production of hot HB stars. Based on a cursory inspection of our new HB tracks with mass loss, adoption of such low mass rates ($`<10^{14}M_{}yr^1`$) would not make any appreciable difference in the HB morphology.

Some of the blue HB stars have been observed to be spectroscopic binaries (Green et al. 1997). This brings up the possibility that the blue HB stars are formed through binary evolution. Some of the formation scenarios such as helium white dwarf mergers (Bailyn & Iben 1989, Iben 1990) can perhaps be ruled out based on the fact that the luminosities are in a small range (see Figure 2). This small range of the luminosities of the hot stars is also in conflict with the binary scenario (Landsman et al. 1998). Mengel, Norris, & Gross (1976) demonstrated that blue HB stars can form through binary evolution with mass transfer via Roche Lobe overflow. However, the conditions under which this occurs are probably too infrequently met, although further study, applicable to metal rich stellar populations, is needed. Furthermore, it is unclear whether all blue HB stars in NGC 6791 are in mass-exchanging binary systems. Therefore, a mechanism to form blue HB stars through single star evolution is still needed. Mass loss on the HB may be such a mechanism.

This work was supported in part by the Creative Research Initiative Program of the Korean Ministry of Science & Technology grant (S.Y.), and grant NAG5-8406 from NASA (P.D.).


text:
# Density fluctuations and entropy

## I  Introduction

Entropy is one of the very important and challenging thermodynamic quantities in statistical mechanics; this is so because it depends on all the n-particle distribution functions. The problem is not the lack of exact expressions but to derive equations that are both accurate and manageable from a theoretical and numerical point of view. Amongst the exact expressions we cite the classical work of Nettleton and Green , and, more recently, , while approximate expressions can be found in . In  we have shown how an infinite subset of terms (dependent exclusively on the one- and two- body distribution functions) can be analytically summed giving rise to the so-called ring approximation and, through a minimization of the free energy functional, the well known HNC approximation  is obtained as an optimized superposition approximation. Later on, Bush et al  derived sets of integral equations by analyzing several levels of approximation to the grand potential function and, in a recent and very interesting article, Puoskari  extends the ring approximation to three particle functions showing how the HNC2 equations either of the Wertheim  or the Baxter  variety can be obtained. Baranyai and Evans  showed that, even though the derivations are done in the grand canonical ensemble, the entropy equations are, in fact, ensemble invariants if local expressions are used for the entropy. In this way, the comparison with canonical ensemble numerical simulations is justified. They also analyze the convergence range of some needed integrals showing how this range increases at high densities. Wallace  also worked with the same type of expression and, by analyzing the behaviour of density fluctuations, proposed an incompressible approximation for the entropy of dense fluids (which, as Wallace himself states, is decidedly wrong in the low density regime). He then concluded that the dilute gas and dense liquid regimes occupy different regions of the phase space. These conclusions have been criticized . Laird and Haymet  have extended the ring approximation to mixtures and applied it to electrolytes. They found that the correct Debye-Huckel expression for the entropy in the low concentration limit is obtained when the ring approximation is included. They have also discussed  the incompressible approximation in dense fluids, proposed an expression that differs from the one of Wallace, and applied it with good numerical results.

Summarizing, these works show that, at low densities the inclusion of the ring approximation gives a very accurate entropy equation and the incompressible approximation is hopelessly wrong, while, at high densities, the ring term overestimates the entropy and the incompressible approximation is reasonably accurate. It has been suggested that more than two bodies correlations must be incorporated in order to have an accurate expansion and, in this respect, Puoskari’s work  is quite promising. It is the purpose of this article to elaborate on the compressibility related contribution to entropy and improve the entropy expansion when truncated to the pair distribution level. In Section II we discuss the conceptual structure of the entropy when written as a functional of the n-bodies distribution function. In Section III it is shown by functional differentiation that the compressibility related contribution only depends on the one body distribution function as well as on thermodynamic parameters and, in Section IV, by summing three subsets of terms, we shed some light on the nature of the incompressible approximation and show how the correct low density limit can also be obtained. In Section V we present our conclusions and propose a new entropy equation.

## II ENTROPY STRUCTURE

We can think on two different criteria for the analysis of the entropy. The first one can be called the functional criterium; is the one we take when interested in the entropy dependence on distribution functions, e.g., when a variational principle is formulated. The second point of view is the numerical one, i.e. the main goal is numerical accuracy. It is clear that it is not necessarily true that the same expression will fulfill satisfactorily both goals. In particular, the incompressible approximation (see eq. (12 )) is numerically correct at high densities, but has the wrong behaviour at low densities and also lacks a sound theoretical foundation.

When the entropy dependence on all the n-bodies distribution functions is explicitly written, we obtain an approximate expression with the following distinct structure contributions :

i) The ideal gas contribution

$$\frac{S^{(id)}}{k}=N\left[\frac{5}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\rho \lambda ^3)\right]$$
(1)
where $`\rho `$ is the number density and $`\lambda `$ the thermal wavelength.

ii) The ever present logarithmic contribution

$$\frac{S^{(\mathrm{ln})}}{k}=\underset{p1}{}d\{𝐩\}n_p(\{𝐩\})\omega _p(\{𝐩\})$$
(2)
where $`n_p(\{𝐩\})`$ is the p-particles distribution function and $`\omega _p(\{𝐩\})`$ the irreducible p-bodies contribution to the potential of average force. More specifically, the link with the more usual notation is

$$g_p(\{𝐩\})=\frac{n_p(\{𝐩\})}{_in_1(𝐢)}$$
(3)
$$e^{\omega _p(\{𝐩\})}=\frac{n_p_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟐}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p2}_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟒}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p4}\mathrm{}}{_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟏}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p1}_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟑}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p3}\mathrm{}}$$
(4)
As usual, we have that $`g_2=1+h_2`$ and, through the use of the generalized superposition approximation (GSA)  we can write that, e.g.

$`g_3(\{\mathrm{𝟑}\})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_3(\{\mathrm{𝟑}\})\right]{\displaystyle \underset{\{\mathrm{𝟐}\}\{\mathrm{𝟑}\}}{}}g_2(\{\mathrm{𝟐}\})`$ (5)
$`g_4(\{\mathrm{𝟒}\})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_4(\{\mathrm{𝟒}\})\right]{\displaystyle \frac{_{\{\mathrm{𝟑}\}\{\mathrm{𝟒}\}}g_3(\{\mathrm{𝟑}\})}{_{\{\mathrm{𝟐}\}\{\mathrm{𝟒}\}}g_2(\{\mathrm{𝟐}\})}}=`$ (7)
$`\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_4(\{\mathrm{𝟒}\})\right]{\displaystyle \underset{\{\mathrm{𝟑}\}\{\mathrm{𝟒}\}}{}}\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_3(\{\mathrm{𝟑}\})\right]{\displaystyle \underset{\{\mathrm{𝟐}\}\{\mathrm{𝟒}\}}{}}g_2(\{\mathrm{𝟐}\})`$
which introduces the family of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ functions that, when different from zero, correct for the difference with the GSA. They can also be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_p(\{𝐩\})=e^{\omega _p(\{𝐩\})}1$$
(8)
This $`S^{(\mathrm{ln})}`$ contribution is the one that, when functionally differentiated, gives rise to the $`\mathrm{ln}g`$ contribution in the integral equations

iii) The ring term, which in its simplest, two-body version, is

$$\frac{S^{(r)}}{k}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{p3}{}\frac{(1)^{p1}}{p}d\{𝐩\}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}n_1(𝐢)h_2(\mathrm{𝟏𝟐})h_2(\mathrm{𝟐𝟑})\mathrm{}h_2(\mathrm{𝐩𝟏})$$
(9)
and it can be summed in homogeneous systems . This term is the responsible of the contribution $`h_2c_2`$ in the integral equations. The three bodies version is derived in .

iv) The compressibility related contribution

$$\frac{S^{(c)}}{k}=\underset{p2}{}\frac{1}{p!}d\{𝐩\}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}n_1(𝐢)\mathrm{\Delta }_p(\{𝐩\})\mathrm{\Gamma }_p(\{n_p\})$$
(10)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_p(\{n_p\})=\frac{_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟏}\}\{𝐩\}}g_{p1}_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟑}\}\{𝐩\}}g_{p3}\mathrm{}}{_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟐}\}\{𝐩\}}g_{p2}_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟒}\}\{𝐩\}}g_{p4}\mathrm{}}$$
(11)
Its first term is essentially the compressibility ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_2h_2)`$ and the sequence of products in eq. (11) stops when reaching either $`g_3`$ or $`g_2`$ . As far as we know there are no previous studies of the whole series given in eq. (10); the compressibility approximation focuses on the first term of this series, which for a one component homogeneous system is

$$\frac{S_2^{(c)}}{k}=N\frac{\rho }{2}𝑑𝐫h_2(r)=\frac{N}{2}\left(1+\alpha _2\right)$$
(12)
As in the dense liquid limit is $`\alpha _21`$, the incompressible approximation considers $`\alpha _2=0`$ in the whole $`\rho T`$ space.

## III FUNCTIONAL DEPENDENCE

Here we prove that, in the thermodynamic limit, all the functional derivatives of the compressibility contribution with respect to the distribution functions can be summarized in the equation

$$\frac{\delta S^{(c)}/k}{\delta n_p(\{𝐩\})}=\delta _{1p}+(e^{<N>})$$
(13)
Therefore,

$$\frac{S^{(c)}}{k}=d\{\mathrm{𝟏}\}n_1(\{\mathrm{𝟏}\})+C(\rho ,T)+(e^{<N>})$$
(14)
C is an integration constant as far as the functional integration refers but, in fact, it depends on $`\rho ,T`$.

The derivation is straigthforward. The origin of the compressibility term $`S^{(c)}`$ is quite clear and eqs. (38-41) of Ref.  are the equations to look at. Equation (38) is our eq. (12) and in eqs. (39-41) we see that each one of them has, amongst other terms, the integral $`n_1g_pd\{𝐩\}`$. When the GSA for $`g_p`$ is used (eq. (7)), the integral decomposes into a sum of two integrals $`n_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_p\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_p\right]d\{𝐩\}`$. The term without $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ contributes to the ring approximation plus neglected terms (such as those shown in Ref. ) and the term with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ contributes to $`S^{(c)}`$.

As $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ can also be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p(\{n_p\})={\displaystyle \frac{_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟏}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p1}_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟑}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p3}\mathrm{}}{_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟐}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p2}_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟒}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p4}\mathrm{}}}`$

using eqs. (4) and (8) we conclude that

$$\frac{S^{(c)}}{k}=\underset{p2}{}\frac{1}{p!}d\{𝐩\}\left[n_p\frac{_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟏}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p1}_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟑}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p3}\mathrm{}}{_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟐}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p2}_{\{𝐩\mathrm{𝟒}\}\{𝐩\}}n_{p4}\mathrm{}}\right]$$
(15)
It is somewhat clear that each one of these integrals is related to p-bodies density fluctuations but a clearer explanation is to be found in the next section. This explains the origin of naming this contribution as compressibility related. Written in this way it is straightforward to show that the functional derivatives are

$$\frac{\delta S^{(c)}/k}{\delta n_1(𝐱)}=\underset{p1}{}(1)^p\frac{N^p}{p!}[1+\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)]=1+\left(e^N\right)$$
(16)
$$\frac{\delta S^{(c)}/k}{\delta n_s(\{𝐱_s\})}=\frac{1}{s!}\underset{p0}{}(1)^p\frac{N^p}{p!}[1+\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)]=\left(e^N\right)$$
(17)
and we arrive to eq. (13).

This result shows that, in the thermodynamic limit, the compressibility term does not contribute to any set of equations we may derive by functional diferentiation of a functional that includes the entropy; it only contributes to the constraint of fixed density. Therefore, if we are after a set of equations which are the consequence of a variational principle, we can rightly put the compressibility term aside from all the others, while if we are after a numerical approximation to the entropy we can assume, on physical grounds, absolute convergence of the whole entropy series and feel free to mix the compressibility term with all the others if numerical convergence is improved.

## IV SERIES SUMMATION

For the sake of this numerical goal we will cut the GSA to third order; in this way $`g_p`$ can be written in two equivalent forms

$$g_p(\{𝐩\})=\{\begin{array}{c}1+_{\{\mathrm{𝟐}\}\{𝐩\}}h_2(\{\mathrm{𝟐}\})+_{\{\mathrm{𝟑}\}\{𝐩\}}h_3(\{\mathrm{𝟑}\})+\mathrm{}h_p(\{𝐩\})\\ _{\{\mathrm{𝟑}\}\{𝐩\}}\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_3(\{\mathrm{𝟑}\})\right]_{\{\mathrm{𝟐}\}\{𝐩\}}\left[1+h_2(\{\mathrm{𝟐}\})\right]\end{array}$$
(18)
In eq. (15) for the compressibility contribution we will sum to infinite order three subsets of terms. These subsets are clearly identified in the $`p=3`$ summand of eq. (15), i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_3^{(c)}}{k}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}{\displaystyle }d\{\mathrm{𝟑}\}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}n_1(𝐢)[g_3(\{\mathrm{𝟑}\}){\displaystyle \underset{\{\mathrm{𝟐}\}\{\mathrm{𝟑}\}}{}}[1+h_2(\{\mathrm{𝟐}\})]=`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}{\displaystyle d\{\mathrm{𝟑}\}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}n_1(𝐢)\left[h_3(\{\mathrm{𝟑}\})\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{ki}{}h_2(\mathrm{𝐢𝐤})h_2(\mathrm{𝟏𝟐})h_2(\mathrm{𝟏𝟑})h_2(\mathrm{𝟐𝟑})\right]}`$
A) The first subset includes the contribution of the integrals $`h_pd\{𝐩\},p2`$. The series is

$$\frac{S_a^{(c)}}{k}=\underset{p=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{p!}d\{𝐩\}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}n_1(𝐢)h_p(\{𝐩\})=\underset{p=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{C_p}{p!}$$
(21)
The moment-cumulant relation  is

$$C_M(\{𝐌\})=h_M(\{𝐌\})\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}n_1(𝐢)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\left\{k\{𝐦_i\}_𝐌\right\}(1)^{k1}(k1)!\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}n_{m_i}(\{𝐦_i\})$$
(22)
Here, the partition of the coordinate set $`\{𝐌\}`$ in $`k`$ disjoint subsets $`\{𝐦_i\}_𝐌,1ik`$ is symbolized by $`\left\{k\{𝐦_i\}_𝐌\right\}`$ and therefore $`_{k=1}^M\left\{k\{𝐦_i\}_𝐌\right\}`$ indicates the sum over all the partitions in $`k`$ subsets and for each $`k`$ is $`1ik`$. In this way $`C_p`$ is related to the integrals $`n_{p_i}=𝑑p_in_{p_i}`$. On the other hand, $`n_{p_i}`$ can be expanded in terms of $`N^k`$

$$n_p=N(N1)\mathrm{}(Np+1)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}s(p,k)N^k$$
(23)
for $`p1`$, where $`s(p,k)`$ are the Stirling numbers of first kind. One of its definitions is that $`(1)^{pk}s(p,k)`$ is the number of permutations of p elements which contain exactly k cycles. They satisfy the recurrence relation

$`s(p+1,k)=s(p,k1)ps(p,k),1kp`$

with starting values

$`s(p,0)=s(0,k)=\delta _{0n}`$

We also define the r-bodies density fluctuations $`\alpha _r`$ by

$$\alpha _r=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& r=1\\ \frac{\left(N<N>\right)^r}{<N>}& r>1\end{array}$$
(24)
The first few $`C_p`$ are then expressed in terms of the $`\alpha _r`$ and Stirling numbers as

$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`N\left(1+\alpha _2\right)=N{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}s(2,i)\alpha _i`$ (25)
$`C_3`$ $`=`$ $`N\left(23\alpha _2+\alpha _3\right)=N{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}s(3,i)\alpha _i`$ (26)
$`C_4`$ $`=`$ $`N\left(6+11\alpha _26\alpha _3+\alpha _4\right)+3N^2\alpha _2^2=N{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}s(4,i)\alpha _i+3N^2\alpha _2^2`$ (27)
The $`3N^2\alpha _2^2`$ term and similar ones from higher order $`C_p`$ will be included in the next partial sum. In order to sum to infinite order the contribution of each r-bodies density fluctuations we need the result

$`{\displaystyle \underset{t=k}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{s(t,k)}{k!}}x^k={\displaystyle \frac{\left[\mathrm{ln}(1+x)\right]^t}{t!}}`$

Therefore, the $`\alpha _r`$ contribution is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha _r}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{ln}21\hfill & r=1\hfill \\ \left(\mathrm{ln}2\right)^r/r!\hfill & r2\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
and our first partial sum, which includes contributions to infinite order of all the $`\alpha _r`$, is

$$\frac{S_a^{(c)}}{k}=\underset{p=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{C_p}{p!}=N\left\{\mathrm{ln}21+\underset{p=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(\mathrm{ln}2\right)^p}{p!}\alpha _p\right\}$$
(29)
Let us remark on some characteristics of this result: i) $`\mathrm{ln}21`$ is the contribution in the absence of density fluctuations and it is also its high density limit ($`\alpha _p1`$), ii) as $`\alpha _p1`$ when $`\rho 0`$, eq. (29) vanishes in the low density limit, iii) the series is rapidly convergent. Therefore, this sum goes in the right direction to improve on the incompressible approximation, both in its numerical results and in its theoretical foundation. This analysis makes also clear why this contribution is referred to as compressibility related. Lastly, the $`\alpha _p`$ are easily expressed as integrals of the correlation functions; the first ones are

$`\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle d\{\mathrm{𝟐}\}n_1(𝐢)h_2(\{\mathrm{𝟐}\})}`$
$`\alpha _3`$ $`=`$ $`2+3\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle d\{\mathrm{𝟑}\}n_1(𝐢)h_3(\{\mathrm{𝟑}\})}`$
B) When in the p-th term of eq. (15) the expansions given in eqs. (18) are inserted, each $`h_k,k<p`$ expanded in terms of $`h_2,\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ and terms like the $`3N^2\alpha _2^2`$ which were left aside in the first partial series included, then all the unconnected (in the graph theory sense) terms cancel out and the first two sets of connected diagrams are those depicted in eq. (20). We first evaluate the sum of ”star ”products of $`h_2`$ bonds

$$\frac{S_b^{(c)}}{k}=\underset{p=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_p=\underset{p=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{p!}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}d\{𝐢\}n_1(𝐢)\underset{ki}{}d\{𝐤\}n_1(𝐤)h_2(\mathrm{𝐢𝐤})$$
(30)
Each summand is easily evaluated as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_p={\displaystyle \frac{N}{(p1)!}}\left(1+\alpha _2\right)^{p1}`$

and the second partial sum is

$$\frac{S_b^{(c)}}{k}=N\left[\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _21)\alpha _2\right]$$
(31)
Its low and high density limits are $`0`$ and $`e^1`$ respectively.

C) This series is a sum of rings very similar to eq. (9), its first term is given in eq. (20) and, as the symmetry number of p-rings is $`2p`$, it can be written as

$$\frac{S_c^{(c)}}{k}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{p3}{}\frac{1}{p}d\{𝐩\}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}n_1(𝐢)h_2(\mathrm{𝟏𝟐})h_2(\mathrm{𝟐𝟑})\mathrm{}h_2(\mathrm{𝐩𝟏})$$
(32)
which can be summed for homogeneous systems in the same way as the original ring approximation was

$$\frac{S_c^{(c)}}{k}=\frac{N}{2\rho }𝑑𝐤\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(1\rho \stackrel{~}{h}_2(k)\right)\rho \stackrel{~}{h}_2(k)\frac{\left(\rho \stackrel{~}{h}_2(k)\right)^2}{2}\right\}$$
(33)
where $`\stackrel{~}{h}_2(k)=d𝐫h(r)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i𝐤.𝐫)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`h_2(r)`$ and the integration is over the $`𝐤`$ space. This contribution can be added to the original ring approximation giving a renormalized ring approximation $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{(r)}`$, which is

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}^{(r)}}{k}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{p2}{}\frac{1}{p}d\{\mathrm{𝟐}𝐩\}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p}{}}n_1(𝐢)h_2(\mathrm{𝟏𝟐})h_2(\mathrm{𝟐𝟑})\mathrm{}h_2(\mathrm{𝟐}𝐩\mathrm{𝟏})$$
(34)
a sum over all even order rings and, for homogeneous systems, the result is

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}^{(r)}}{k}=\frac{N}{2\rho }𝑑𝐤\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(1(\rho \stackrel{~}{h}_2(k))^2\right)+\left(\rho \stackrel{~}{h}_2(k)\right)^2\right\}$$
(35)
## V CONCLUSIONS

Collecting together the different results obtained, i.e. eqs. (29), (31) and (35) with eqs. (1) and (2) we arrive to a new entropy equation which includes a partial summation of the compressibility related contribution, i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{k}}`$ $`=`$ $`N\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(\rho \lambda ^3)\right]{\displaystyle \underset{p1}{}}{\displaystyle d\{𝐩\}n_p(\{𝐩\})\omega _p(\{𝐩\})}+`$ (38)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\rho }}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐤\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(1(\rho \stackrel{~}{h}_2(k))^2\right)+(\rho \stackrel{~}{h}_2(k))^2\right\}}+`$
$`+N\left\{\mathrm{ln}21+{\displaystyle \underset{p=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{ln}2\right)^p}{p!}}\alpha _p\right\}N\left[\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _21)\alpha _2\right]`$
If, for just a moment, we neglect the renormalization in the ring approximation, the contribution due to the r-bodies density fluctuations gives not only a theoretical understanding on the nature of the incompressible approximation, but also a description that is essentially correct in the low and high density limits ($`0`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}21e^1`$ respectively). As the ring approximation grows quite steeply when the density increases , its renormalization should have the right asymptotic behaviour. Let us also mention that these results extends trivially to mixtures (see, e.g. ) and, in this case, it is more convenient to work with the entropy per unite volume.

We have also shown that, in the thermodynamic limit, the compressibility term only depends (as a functional) on the one body distribution function. Therefore, this functional dependence is such that it only enters in the constant density constraint and, in this way, the conceptual structure of the equation for the entropy is significantly simplified. As our results apply to the full entropy functional, they are valuable to any functional minimization as, e.g., those in . It can also be mentioned that this theorem does not conflict with Laird-Haymet . They obtained the correct Debye-Huckel low density expression for the entropy by including the $`S^{(id)},S^{(\mathrm{ln})},`$ $`S^{(r)}`$ plus the compressibility related contribution of eq. 12). As this term and, in fact, all the sums we did, vanish when $`\rho 0`$ (including the one that renormalizes the ring approximation), there is no contradiction between ours and theirs results. Lastly, as this result does not depend on the potential, it is also valid for the associative Wertheim-Ornstein-Zernike equation  as well as systems with directional forces .

This new functional provides a robust and systematic way to develop fully analytical theories of liquids , which will be examined in future work.

## VI  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation through grants CHE-95-13558, Epscor OSR-94-52893, by the DOE-EPSCoR grant DE-FCO2-91ER75674 and CONICET grant PIP 0859/98.