text:
# SU(4) Chiral Quark Model with Configuration Mixing.

## Abstract

Chiral quark model with configuration mixing and broken SU(3)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry has been extended to include the contribution from $`c\overline{c}`$ fluctuations by considering broken SU(4) instead of SU(3). The implications of such a model have been studied for quark flavor and spin distribution functions corresponding to E866 and the NMC data. The predicted parameters regarding the charm spin distribution functions, for example, $`\mathrm{\Delta }c`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c}{c}`$ as well as the charm quark distribution functions, for example, $`\overline{c}`$, $`\frac{2\overline{c}}{(\overline{u}+\overline{d})}`$, $`\frac{2\overline{c}}{(u+d)}`$ and $`\frac{(c+\overline{c})}{{\scriptscriptstyle (q+\overline{q})}}`$ are in agreement with other similar calculations. Specifically, we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }c=0.009`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }}=0.02`$, $`\overline{c}=0.03`$ and $`\frac{(c+\overline{c})}{{\scriptscriptstyle (q+\overline{q})}}=0.02`$ for the $`\chi `$QM parameters $`a=0.1`$, $`\alpha =0.4`$, $`\beta =0.7`$, $`\zeta _{E866}=12\beta `$, $`\zeta _{NMC}=22\beta `$ and $`\gamma =0.3`$, the latter appears due to the extension of SU(3) to SU(4).

There has been considerable interest in estimating the possible size of the intrinsic charm content of the nucleon . Detailed investigations have been carried out regarding the size and implications of intrinsic charm contribution for nucleon  in a version of chiral quark model ($`\chi `$QM)  which is quite successful in giving a satisfactory explanation of “proton spin crisis”  including the violation of Gottfried sum rule . Further, the same model is also able to account for the existence of significant strange quark content $`\overline{s}`$  in the nucleon as well as is able to provide fairly satisfactory explanation for quark flavor and spin distribution functions , baryon magnetic moments , absence of polarizations of the antiquark sea in the nucleon , hyperon decay parameters etc..

Recently, it has been shown that configuration mixing generated by spin-spin forces , known to be compatible with the $`\chi `$QM , improves the predictions of $`\chi `$QM regarding the quark distribution functions and the spin polarization functions . Further, $`\chi `$QM with configuration mixing (henceforth to be referred as $`\chi `$QMgcm ) when coupled with the quark sea polarization and orbital angular momentum (Cheng-Li mechanism ) as well as “confinement effects”  is able to give an excellent fit  to the octet magnetic moments and a perfect fit for the violation of Coleman Glashow sum rule .

The successes of $`\chi `$QM in resolving the “proton spin crisis” and related issues strongly suggest that constituent quarks and the weakly interacting Goldstone bosons (GBs) provide the appropriate degrees of freedom in the nonperturbative regime of QCD. Thus the quantum fluctuations generated by broken chiral symmetry in $`\chi `$QMgcm should be able to provide a viable estimate of the heavier quark flavor, for example, $`c\overline{c}`$, $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$. However, it is known that these flavor fluctuations are much suppressed in the case of $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ as compared to the $`c\overline{c}`$ because the intrinsic heavy quark contributions scale as $`1/M_q^2`$, where $`M_q`$ is the mass of the heavy quark . Therefore, regarding the intrinsic charm flavor content of the nucleon one should estimate only the contribution of $`c\overline{c}`$ fluctuations and for that one should be considering the extension of SU(3) symmetry in $`\chi `$QM to SU(4).

The purpose of the present communication, on the one hand, is to extend $`\chi `$QMgcm with broken SU(3)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry to broken SU(4)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry. On the other hand, using the NMC  and the latest E866 data , we intend to study the implications of such a model for quark flavor and spin distribution functions, in particular the charm quark flavor and spin distribution functions.

The details of $`\chi `$QMgcm within the SU(3) framework have already been discussed in Ref. , here we discuss the essentials of its extension to SU(4) $`\chi `$QMgcm. To begin with, the basic process in the $`\chi `$QM is the emission of a GB which further splits into $`q\overline{q}`$ pair, for example,

$$q_\pm \mathrm{GB}^0+q_{}^{^{}}(q\overline{q}^{^{}})+q_{}^{^{}},$$
(1)
wherein $`q\overline{q}^{^{}}`$ pairs and $`q^{^{}}`$ constitute the “quark sea” with $`q^{^{}}`$ having opposite helicity as that of $`q`$. The effective Lagrangian describing interaction between quarks and the mesons in the SU(4) case is

$$=g_{15}\overline{q}\varphi q,$$
(2)
where $`g_{15}`$ is the coupling constant,

$`q=\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\\ s\\ c\end{array}\right)`$

and $`\varphi `$ represents the SU(4) matrix

$`\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\pi ^o}{\sqrt{2}}+\beta \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{6}}+\zeta \frac{\eta ^{^{}}}{4\sqrt{3}}\gamma \frac{3\eta _c^o}{4}& \pi ^+& \alpha K^+& \gamma \overline{D}^o\\ \pi ^{}& \frac{\pi ^o}{\sqrt{2}}+\beta \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{6}}+\zeta \frac{\eta ^{^{}}}{4\sqrt{3}}\gamma \frac{3\eta _c^o}{4}& \alpha K^o& \gamma D^{}\\ \alpha K^{}& \alpha \overline{K}^o& \beta \frac{2\eta }{\sqrt{6}}+\zeta \frac{\eta ^{^{}}}{4\sqrt{3}}\gamma \frac{3\eta _c^o}{4}& \gamma D_s^{}\\ \gamma D^o& \gamma D^+& \gamma D_s^+& \zeta \frac{3\eta ^{^{}}}{4\sqrt{3}}+\gamma \frac{3\eta _c^o}{4}\end{array}\right).`$

SU(4) symmetry breaking is introduced by considering different quark masses $`M_c>M_s>M_{u,d}`$ as well as by considering the masses of GBs to be non-degenerate $`(M_D>M_{K,\eta }>M_\pi )`$ similar to the SU(3) case , whereas the axial U(1) breaking is introduced by $`M_\eta ^{^{}}>M_{K,\eta }`$ . The parameter $`a(=|g_{15}|^2`$) denotes the transition probability of chiral fluctuation of the splittings $`u(d)d(u)+\pi ^{+()}`$, whereas $`\alpha ^2a`$, $`\beta ^2a`$, $`\zeta ^2a`$ and $`\gamma ^2a`$ denote the probabilities of transition of $`u(d)s+K^{(o)}`$, $`u(d,s)u(d,s)+\eta `$, $`u(d,s)u(d,s)+\eta ^{^{}}`$ and $`u(d)c+\overline{D}^o(D^{})`$ respectively.

The detailed effects of configuration mixing generated by spin-spin forces  in the context of $`\chi `$QM has already been discussed in $`\chi `$QMgcm , however to make the manuscript readable as well as self contained we include here some of the essentials of configuration mixing. Following reference , the wavefunction for the octet of baryons after configuration mixing is given as

$$|B=\left(|56,0^+_{N=0}\mathrm{cos}\theta +|56,0^+_{N=2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\left(|70,0^+_{N=2}\mathrm{cos}\theta +|70,2^+_{N=2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(3)
where $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the mixing angles with

$`|56,0^+_{N=0,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\chi ^{^{}}\varphi ^{^{}}+\chi ^{^{\prime \prime }}\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }})\psi ^s(0^+),`$ (4)
$`|70,0^+_{N=2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(\varphi ^{^{}}\chi ^{^{\prime \prime }}+\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }}\chi ^{^{}})\psi ^{^{}}(0^+)+(\varphi ^{^{}}\chi ^{^{}}\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }}\chi ^{^{\prime \prime }})\psi ^{^{\prime \prime }}(0^+)],`$ (5)
$`|70,2^+_{N=2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[\varphi ^{^{}}\chi ^s\psi ^{^{}}(2^+)+\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }}\chi ^s\psi ^{^{\prime \prime }}(2^+)].`$ (6)
The spin wave functions are as follows

$`\chi ^{^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(),\chi ^{^{\prime \prime }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(2).`$

The isospin wave functions for proton are

$`\varphi ^{^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(ududuu),\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(2uudududuu).`$

The above mixing can effectively be reduced to non trivial mixing  and the corresponding “mixed” octet of baryons is expressed as

$$|B|8,\frac{1}{2}^+=\mathrm{cos}\varphi |56,0^+_{N=0}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi |70,0^+_{N=2}.$$
(7)
Henceforth, we would not distinguish between configuration mixing given in Eq. (3) and the “mixed” octet given above.

Following Ref. , the total probability of no emission of GB from a $`q`$ quark ($`q=u,d,s,c`$) can be calculated from the Lagrangian for the SU(4) case and is given by

$$P_q=1P_q,$$
(8)
where

$`{\displaystyle P_u}`$ $`=`$ $`a\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{48}}+\gamma ^2\right),`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle P_d}`$ $`=`$ $`a\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{48}}+\gamma ^2\right),`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle P_s}`$ $`=`$ $`a\left(2\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{48}}+\gamma ^2\right),`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle P_c}`$ $`=`$ $`a\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\zeta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{57}{16}}\gamma ^2\right).`$ (12)
Before getting into the details of the calculations one needs to formulate experimentally measurable quantities having implications for the charm content of the nucleon as well as dependent on the unpolarized quark distribution functions and the spin polarization functions in $`\chi `$QMgcm with broken SU(4) symmetry. We first calculate the spin polarizations and the related quantities which are affected by the “mixed” nucleon. The spin structure of a nucleon for the SU(4) case is defined in a similar manner as that of the SU(3) case  and is

$$\widehat{B}B|N|B,$$
(13)
where $`|B`$ is the nucleon wavefunction defined in Eq. (7) and $`N`$ is the number operator given by

$$N=n_{u^+}u^++n_u^{}u^{}+n_{d^+}d^++n_d^{}d^{}+n_{s^+}s^++n_s^{}s^{}+n_{c^+}c^++n_c^{}c^{},$$
(14)
where $`n_{q^\pm }`$ are the number of $`q^\pm `$ quarks. The spin structure of the “mixed” nucleon, defined through the Eq. (7), is given by

$$8,\frac{1}{2}^+|N|8,\frac{1}{2}^+=\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi 56,0^+|N|56,0^++\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi 70,0^+|N|70,0^+.$$
(15)
Using Eqs. (4) and (5), for proton we get

$`56,0^+|N|56,0^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}u^++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}u^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}d^++{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}d^{},`$ (16)
$`70,0^+|N|70,0^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}u^++{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}u^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}d^++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}d^{}.`$ (17)
The spin structure after one interaction can be obtained by substituting in the above equations for every quark, for example,

$$q^\pm P_qq^\pm +|\psi (q^\pm )|^2,$$
(18)
where $`P_q`$ is the probability of no emission of GB from a $`q`$ quark defined in Eq. (8) and the probabilities of transforming a $`q^\pm `$ quark are $`|\psi (q^\pm )|^2`$ which are given for the SU(4) broken $`\chi `$QM as

$`|\psi (u^\pm )|^2`$ $`=`$ $`a\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{48}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{16}}\right)u^{}+ad^{}+a\alpha ^2s^{}+a\gamma ^2c^{},`$ (19)
$`|\psi (d^\pm )|^2`$ $`=`$ $`au^{}+a\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{48}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{16}}\right)d^{}+a\alpha ^2s^{}+a\gamma ^2c^{},`$ (20)
$`|\psi (s^\pm )|^2`$ $`=`$ $`a\alpha ^2u^{}+a\alpha ^2d^{}+a\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{48}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{16}}\right)s^{}+a\gamma ^2c^{},`$ (21)
$`|\psi (c^\pm )|^2`$ $`=`$ $`a\gamma ^2u^{}+a\gamma ^2d^{}+a\gamma ^2s^{}+a\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\zeta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}\gamma ^2\right)c^{}.`$ (22)
Substituting Eqs. (16), (17) and (18) in Eq. (15), we can derive the spin polarizations, defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }q=q^+q^{}+\overline{q}^+\overline{q}^{}`$, for example

$`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{3}}(7+4\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\beta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\zeta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\gamma ^2)\right]+\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{3}}(5+2\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\zeta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\gamma ^2)\right],`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{3}}(2\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\beta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\zeta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}\gamma ^2)\right]+\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{3}}(4+\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\beta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\zeta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}\gamma ^2)\right],`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ $`=`$ $`a\alpha ^2,`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }c`$ $`=`$ $`a\gamma ^2.`$ (26)
After having formulated the spin polarizations of various quarks in terms of SU(4) $`\chi `$QMgcm, we consider several measured quantities which are expressed in terms of the above mentioned spin polarization functions. Some of the quantities usually calculated in the $`\chi `$QM are the weak axial-vector form factors and are expressed as

$`(G_A/G_V)_{np}=\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }d,`$ (27)
$`(G_A/G_V)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }d\mathrm{\Delta }s),`$ (28)
$`(G_A/G_V)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}n}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\mathrm{\Delta }s,`$ (29)
$`(G_A/G_V)_{\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }d2\mathrm{\Delta }s).`$ (30)
Another quantity which is usually evaluated is the total helicity fraction carried by the quark $`q`$ defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(31)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }d+\mathrm{\Delta }s+\mathrm{\Delta }c,$$
(32)
which is the total quark spin content. It may be added that the expressions for Bjorken  and Ellis-Jaffe sum rules  are not affected in the present case, however, the contributions to these get affected as $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ include contributions from charm quark fluctuations also. For the sake of completeness we express these in terms of the above mentioned spin polarization functions, for example, the Bjorken sum rule is

$$_0^1[g_1^p(x,Q^2)g_1^n(x,Q^2)]𝑑x=\frac{G_A/G_V}{6},$$
(33)
where $`g_1^{p(n)}(x,Q^2)`$ is the spin structure function of the proton (neutron) and $`G_A/G_V`$ is the $`\beta `$ decay constant for neutron. The Ellis-Jaffe sum rule is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_8=\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }d2\mathrm{\Delta }s=3FD,$$
(34)
where $`F`$ and $`D`$ are the axial coupling constants estimated from the weak decays of hyperons and their relation to the spin polarization functions remain the same in the case of SU(3) and SU(4) $`\chi `$QM, for example,

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }s),`$ (35)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }u2\mathrm{\Delta }d+\mathrm{\Delta }s).`$ (36)
However, again $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ take on different values compared to SU(3) because there is an additional term corresponding to the charm quark fluctuations and also the coefficient corresponding to the $`\eta ^{}`$ term is different. This can be seen by comparing the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ in the present case (Eqs (23) and (24)) and the corresponding expressions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ in the SU(3) case .

The unpolarized valence quark distribution functions are not affected by configuration mixing, however these get affected due to the addition of $`c\overline{c}`$ fluctuations and hence are dependent on the SU(4)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry breaking parameters. A calculation of these quantities also assumes importance in the present case as we attempt to effect a unified fit to spin and quark distribution functions. The quark distribution functions which have implications for the symmetry breaking parameters of SU(4) are the antiquark flavor contents of the “quark sea” which can be expressed as

$`\overline{u}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}[(2\beta +\zeta +2)^2+80]a,`$ (37)
$`\overline{d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}[(2\beta +\zeta 2)^2+128]a,`$ (38)
$`\overline{s}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}[(\zeta 4\beta )^2+144\alpha ^2]a,`$ (39)
$`\overline{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{51}{16}}\gamma ^2a.`$ (40)
The deviation from the Gottfried sum rule  can be expressed in terms of the symmetry breaking parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\zeta `$ as

$$\left[I_G\frac{1}{3}\right]=\frac{2}{3}\left[\frac{a}{6}(2\beta +\zeta 6)\right],$$
(41)
where $`I_G=_0^1𝑑x\frac{F_2^p(x)F_2^n(x)}{x}`$ is the Gottfried integral. Similarly, $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$  measured through the ratio of muon pair production cross sections $`\sigma _{pn}`$ and $`\sigma _{pp}`$, is expressed in the present case as follows

$$\overline{d}/\overline{u}=\frac{(2\beta +\zeta 2)^2+128}{(2\beta +\zeta +2)^2+80}.$$
(42)
Further, some of the quark flavor fractions usually discussed in the literature  are also expressed as follows

$`f_q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q+\overline{q}}{[_q(q+\overline{q})]}},`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{s}}{\overline{u}+\overline{d}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\zeta 4\beta )^2+144\alpha ^2}{(2\beta +\zeta )^2+108}},`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{c}}{\overline{u}+\overline{d}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{153\gamma ^2}{(2\beta +\zeta )^2+108}},`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{s}}{u+d}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a[(\zeta 4\beta )^2+144\alpha ^2]}{72+a[(2\beta +\zeta )^2+108]}},`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{c}}{u+d}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{153\gamma ^2a}{72+a[(2\beta +\zeta )^2+108]}}.`$ (47)
The $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ distributions in the case of proton are normalized as

$$u\overline{u}=2,d\overline{d}=1,s\overline{s}=0,c\overline{c}=0.$$
(48)
The above mentioned spin polarization functions and the quark distribution functions are to be fitted for the E866 as well as NMC data. In principle, one can obtain this fit by considering all possible variations of SU(4) and U(1) symmetry breaking parameters as well as the mixing angle $`\varphi `$. However, keeping in mind the general expectation that the $`c\overline{c}`$ contribution cannot be large compared to the $`s\overline{s}`$ contribution as well as to compare our results with the corresponding results of $`\chi `$QMgcm with SU(3)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry breaking, in our analysis we have considered the parameters $`a`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ to be the same as in SU(3) case. The parameter $`\gamma `$, controlling $`c\overline{c}`$ contribution, has been varied from 0.1 to 0.3 as considered by other authors . The parameter $`\zeta `$, as discussed in Ref. , represents the U(1) symmetry breaking parameter and is responsible for reproducing the violation of Gottfried sum rule. Similar to the case of SU(3), here also we have derived the relation of $`\zeta `$ in terms of $`\beta `$ from the violation of Gottfried sum rule given in Eq. (41). Its value undergoes a major change in case of SU(4) as compared to that of SU(3), for example, for E866 we have $`\zeta =12\beta `$ as compared to $`\zeta =0.3\beta /2`$ and for NMC we have $`\zeta =22\beta `$ as compared to $`\zeta =0.7\beta /2`$. The mixing parameter $`\varphi `$ is taken to be 20o as found from neutron charge radius  and considered in our earlier work . The results without configuration mixing can easily be obtained by substituting $`\varphi =0`$ in the expressions for spin polarization functions.

In Tables (I) and (II) we have presented the results of our calculations pertaining to spin distribution and quark distribution functions respectively. In the tables we have also included the results of $`\chi `$QMgcm with SU(3) symmetry breaking, primarily to compare these with the corresponding SU(4) symmetry breaking calculations. Similarly, in the case of SU(4) we have also included the results without configuration mixing which allows the comparison of the two results for the SU(4) case. The calculations have been performed for E866 as well as for NMC data and the corresponding results for each case have been included in the tables.

From Table (I), one can immediately find out that calculations in SU(4) $`\chi `$QMgcm are able to maintain the agreement achieved in the case of SU(3) $`\chi `$QMgcm for the spin polarizations $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ and the related quantities such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_8`$, hyperon decay parameters F and D as well as the weak axial-vector form factors. Expectedly, the two results look to be similar with the slight changes occurring in the case of SU(4) in comparison to the SU(3) results primarily due to changes induced in $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ involving the symmetry breaking parameters, $`\zeta `$ and $`\gamma `$, which take different values as compared to SU(3) $`\chi `$QM. One also finds that the quantities involving strange quarks are not affected because in the present formalism there is no process which can mix the strange and charm contributions. The main predictions of SU(4) $`\chi `$QM pertains to quantities such as, $`\mathrm{\Delta }c`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }c/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }c/c`$, which have vanishing amplitudes at the tree level in SU(3) $`\chi `$QM. The charm contribution, corresponding to spin polarization functions, however is smaller by one order of magnitude as compared to the corresponding parameter involving strange quark which is in accord with another recent analysis . Similarly, we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{15}(=\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }d+\mathrm{\Delta }s3\mathrm{\Delta }c)`$ is also in agreement with analysis of Ref. .

The role of configuration mixing in the present context can easily be examined from Table (I). We find that the configuration mixing effects a uniform improvement in the case of spin polarization functions compared to those without configuration mixing. For example, $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_8`$, hyperon decay parameters $`F`$ and $`D`$, weak axial-vector form factors $`(G_A/G_V)_{np}`$, $`(G_A/G_V)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ show remarkable improvement whereas the results of $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }c`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`(G_A/G_V)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}n}`$ and $`(G_A/G_V)_{\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ are in good deal of agreement with the data.

From Table (II), we find that in the SU(4) $`\chi `$QM the important measurable quark distribution functions, for example, $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$, $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$, $`I_G`$, $`\frac{2\overline{s}}{(\overline{u}+\overline{d})}`$, $`\frac{2\overline{s}}{(u+d)}`$, $`f_s`$, $`f_3/f_8`$ etc. are in good agreement with the data. It may be noted that although in the present case some of the symmetry breaking parameters take different values compared to SU(3) case still we find that our results are in good agreement with the data. It may also be noted that the quark distribution functions $`\overline{u}`$, $`\overline{d}`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ assume different values in the present case as compared to the SU(3) case because of the changed parameters, however the quantities dependent on these again remain in good agreement with data. The values of the quantities involving $`c`$ quark, for example, $`\overline{c}`$, $`\frac{2\overline{c}}{(\overline{u}+\overline{d})}`$, $`\frac{2\overline{c}}{(u+d)}`$ and $`f_c`$, are in agreement with the predictions given by other authors . Interestingly, in the case of $`\frac{2\overline{s}}{(\overline{u}+\overline{d})}`$ and $`\frac{2\overline{s}}{(u+d)}`$, our predictions are in better agreement with data compared to another recent analysis , therefore a refinement in the measurement of these would have important implications for the details of the $`\chi `$QM.

A closer scrutiny of the tables reveals several additional points. There is a difference in the predictions of the fit corresponding to E866 and NMC data as is evident in the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$, $`(G_A/G_V)_{np}`$, $`(G_A/G_V)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$, $`\overline{s}`$, $`\frac{2\overline{s}}{(\overline{u}+\overline{d})}`$, $`\frac{2\overline{s}}{(u+d)}`$, $`f_s`$, $`f_3`$, $`f_8`$ and $`\frac{{\scriptscriptstyle \overline{q}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle q}}`$. This is primarily due to the fact that the parameter $`\zeta `$, responsible for fitting the violation of Gottfried sum rule, assumes different values in the two cases. It may be of interest to mention that in SU(4) $`\chi `$QMgcm, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c}{c}`$ is independent of any splitting parameter unlike other similar fractions for different quark flavors $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }q}{q}`$.

To summarize, we have extended the $`\chi `$QMgcm with broken SU(3)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry to broken SU(4)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry with and without configuration mixing. The implications of such a model have been studied for quark flavor and spin distribution functions corresponding to NMC and the latest E866 data. The charm dependent quantities such as charm spin distribution functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }c`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c}{c}`$ and the charm quark distribution functions $`\overline{c}`$, $`\frac{2\overline{c}}{(\overline{u}+\overline{d})}`$, $`\frac{2\overline{c}}{(u+d)}`$ and $`\frac{(c+\overline{c})}{{\scriptscriptstyle (q+\overline{q})}}`$, have been calculated and the results are in agreement with other similar calculations. Specifically, we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }c=0.009`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }c}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }}=0.02`$, $`\overline{c}=0.03`$ and $`\frac{(c+\overline{c})}{{\scriptscriptstyle (q+\overline{q})}}=0.02`$. Interestingly, the SU(4) results remain in agreement with that corresponding to the SU(3) calculations despite different values of some of the symmetry breaking parameters. It may also be noted that the results with configuration mixing generally show better overlap with data than those without configuration mixing.

In conclusion, we would like to mention that $`\chi `$QM with broken SU(4) symmetry, apart from maintaining the successes of $`\chi `$QM with broken SU(3) symmetry, predicts the intrinsic charm spin and flavor distribution content of the nucleon which is found to be almost an order of magnitude smaller than the strange quark contributions but not entirely insignificant. A measurement of these charm related quantities would not only test the $`\chi `$QM but would also provide an insight into the nonperturbative regime of QCD.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank S.D. Sharma and M. Randhawa for a few useful discussions. H.D. would like to thank CSIR, Govt. of India, for financial support and the chairman, Department of Physics, for providing facilities to work in the department.


format: text

text:
# Subaru Deep Survey. IV. Discovery of a Large-Scale Structure at Redshift ≃5Based on data collected at Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The formation and evolution of the large-scale clustering of galaxies, as seen in the present-day universe, are central issues in cosmology. Observations of galaxy clustering in the distant universe give us great clues to this issue, including how galaxies were formed in the underlying dark matter. To date, many efforts have been made to detect large-scale clustering of galaxies at high redshifts. Probable detections of galaxy clusters on Megaparsec scales have been reported (e.g., Giavalisco et al. 1994; Pascarelle et al. 1996a; Le Fèvre et al. 1996; Malkan, Teplitz, & McLean 1996; Francis et al. 1996; Keel et al. 1999; Campos et al. 1999; Pentericci et al. 2000). The most remarkable observation is the discovery of a high concentration of Lyman-break Galaxies (LBGs) at $`z3`$ with a size of at least $`11^{}\times 8^{}`$ (or $`21\times 15`$ Mpc) by Steidel et al. (1998), who argue that LBGs must be very biased tracers of mass if such a structure is consistent with Cold Dark Matter (CDM) models. More recently, Venemans et al. (2002) have discovered a proto-cluster of $`M10^{15}M_{}`$ with a size of $`2.7\times 1.8`$ Mpc around a radio galaxy at $`z=4.1`$ through a narrow-band survey.

To place stringent constraints on models of structure formation, it is crucial to observe galaxy clustering over a wide range of scales at various epochs. In this Letter, we report on a narrow-band survey in a $`25^{}\times 45^{}`$ field for Lyman $`\alpha `$ Emitters (LAEs) at $`z=4.86`$. Our main goal is to search at high redshifts for the progenitors of present-day large-scale structures like the Great Wall (Geller & Huchra 1989), in order to trace the evolution of structures on scales of tens of Mpc. We also aim at detecting (proto) clusters at $`z5`$. Unless otherwise noted, we adopt $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and $`\lambda _0=0.7`$, and express the Hubble constant as $`H_0=70h_{70}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS

### 2.1 Imaging

We carried out a deep imaging survey in the sky area of the Subaru Deep Field (SDF; centered at $`(13^h24^m21.^s4,+27^{}29^{}23^{\prime \prime })`$ \[J2000.0\]; Maihara et al. 2001) in the $`R`$ and $`i`$ bands and a narrow-band filter centered at 7126 Å, NB711, with the prime-focus camera (Suprime-Cam; Miyazaki et al. 2002) on Subaru in March - June 2001 and May 2002. The FWHM of the NB711 filter is 73 Å111The central wavelength and the FWHM of the NB711 filter are the values measured for the F/1.86 prime focus., giving a survey depth for LAEs along the sightline of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0.06`$, or equivalently $`33h_{70}^1`$ Mpc. We observed two field-of-views (FoVs) of Suprime-Cam allowing for a wide overlap: the central FoV and the northern FoV 222We first observed the central FoV and found in a northern part a large-scale overdense region of LAE candidates. We then imaged the northern FoV with an overlap of $`15^{}`$ to check the reliability of this overdense region as well as to trace a northern extension of the overdense region. We found consistently an overdense region in the data of the northern FoV. The match of LAE candidates in the overlapped region between the two FoV data is $`60\%`$, which can be regarded as an estimate of the completeness of our LAE detection..

Fig. 1. — Two-color diagrams for continuum color ($`Ri^{}`$) and narrow-band excess color ($`Ri\mathrm{NB711}`$), where $`Ri(R+i)/2`$ is a continuum magnitude. (left panel) Tracks of model galaxies at different redshifts. Red lines indicate model LAEs which are a composite spectrum of a 0.03 Gyr single burst model galaxy (GISSEL96; Bruzual & Charlot 1993) and a Lyman $`\alpha `$ emission ($`EW_{\mathrm{rest}}`$(Ly$`\alpha `$)=22 Å); from the left to right, three different amplitudes of IGM absorption are applied: $`0.5\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and $`1.5\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, where $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is Madau’s (1995) median opacity. The narrow-band excess in each of the peaks in the red lines indicates the Lyman $`\alpha `$ emission of LAEs at $`z=4.86`$. Green lines show six templates of nearby starburst galaxies, with different dust extinction ($`E(BV)=0.00.7`$), given in Kinney et al. (1996) redshifted up to $`z=1.2`$. The narrow-band excess peaks in the green lines correspond to the emission line of H$`\alpha `$ ($`z=0.08`$), \[OIII\]($`z=0.4`$), H$`\beta `$($`z=0.5`$), or \[OII\]($`z=0.9`$). Two blue lines indicate the tracks for model LBGs without Lyman $`\alpha `$ emission, with $`0.5\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, respectively. Black lines show colors of typical elliptical, spiral, and irregular galaxies of Coleman, Wu, & Weedman (1980) which are redshifted from $`z=0`$ to $`z=2`$. Yellow star marks show 175 Galactic stars given by Gunn & Stryker (1983), and 24 Kurucz model stars. (right panel) Colors of the detected objects. Large circles indicate 43 LAE candidates, among which red ones have spectroscopic observations, while small dots are for the other objects. An open circle with error bars indicates the median colors and their errors for the 43 LAE candidates. Our LAE selection criteria are outlined by a pink line.

The data of the central FoV have already been reduced and used to study general properties of LAEs by Ouchi et al. (2003a). For the northern FoV, individual CCD data were reduced and combined using IRAF and our own data reduction software (Yagi et al. 2002). For the overlapped region, we use the data of the central FoV. The total exposure time and the limiting magnitude ($`3\sigma `$ on a $`1.^{\prime \prime }8`$ aperture) are: 90 min and 27.1 mag ($`R`$), 138 min and 26.9 mag ($`i^{}`$), and 162 min and 26.0 mag (NB711) for the central FoV; 120 min and 27.5 mag ($`R`$), 110 min and 27.3 mag ($`i^{}`$), and 144 min and 26.1 mag (NB711) for the northern FoV. All magnitudes are AB magnitudes. The seeing sizes of the final images are $`0.^{\prime \prime }90`$.

Object detection and photometry are made using SExtractor version 2.1.6 (Bertin & Arnouts 1996). The NB711-band image is chosen to detect objects. In this Letter, to ensure secure photometry and a low contamination for our LAE sample, we confine ourselves to objects brighter than NB711=25.5 (their number is $`34,653`$). We apply the following criteria (Ouchi et al. 2003a) to these objects, to isolate LAEs at $`z=4.86`$: $`Ri\mathrm{NB711}>0.8`$, $`Ri>0.5`$, and $`i^{}\mathrm{NB711}>0`$, where $`Ri(R+i^{})/2`$. The second criterion reduces contamination by foreground galaxies whose emission lines other than Lyman $`\alpha `$ happen to enter the $`\mathrm{NB711}`$ band (see Fig. 1). The number of objects passing the above criteria is 43. Figure 1 plots on the $`Ri\mathrm{NB711}`$ vs $`Ri^{}`$ plane all objects with $`\mathrm{NB711}25.5`$ (right) and model galaxies and Galactic stars (left). This figure demonstrates that the second criterion efficiently removes low-$`z`$ objects but selects LAEs at $`z=4.86`$ (Ouchi et al. 2003a).

Fig. 2. — Spectra of five candidates over the range 6900-7300Å. Flux of objects $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, and $`D`$, has been offset for clarity by $`4\times 10^{18}`$, $`3\times 10^{18}`$, $`2\times 10^{18}`$, and $`1\times 10^{18}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 Å-1, respectively. The (relative) spectrum of the night sky emission is shown by a dotted line; emission lines are not present around 7100Å.

### 2.2 Spectroscopy

We selected a $`6^{}\varphi `$ field of the highest overdensity (see §3.1) for multi-slit spectroscopy, and made spectroscopic observations for five candidates in this field with FOCAS (Kashikawa et al. 2002) on Subaru on June 6, 2002, to check our photometric selection. Table 1 summarizes their properties. The exposure time was 2 hr for each object. The seeing size was $`0.^{\prime \prime }70.^{\prime \prime }8`$. We used the 300 line/mm grating with a dispersion of 1.4 Å pixel-1 and a wavelength coverage of 4700-9400 Å. We adopted a slit width of $`0.^{\prime \prime }8`$, which gave a spectral resolution of 9.8 Å. The continuum flux limit of our spectroscopy was $`6.3\times 10^{19}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 Å-1 ($`5\sigma `$).

Figure 2 shows spectra of the five candidates after two-pixel smoothing. All the spectra have an emission line near 7100Å. Possible candidates (other than Lyman $`\alpha `$) for this emission line are H$`\alpha `$, H$`\beta `$, \[OIII\]$`\lambda 5007`$, and \[OII\]$`\lambda 3727`$. We find that the lines are not \[OIII\]$`\lambda 5007`$ at $`z0.4`$ because of the lack of the H$`\beta `$ line at the corresponding wavelength; from similar reasons, they are not either H$`\alpha `$ or H$`\beta `$. Thus, the five objects are either an LAE or an \[OII\] emitter.

Table 1. Five candidates with spectroscopic observations.

ID $`R^{(a)}`$ $`i^{(a)}`$ NB711(a) $`z`$ EW(b) $`f^{(c)}`$     (mag) (mag) (mag)  (Å)   $`A`$ 27.18 26.32 24.24 4.850 51 3.5  $`B`$ 28.25 26.82 25.33 4.834 15 0.77  $`C`$ 27.22 26.56 24.88 4.856 14 0.93  $`D`$ 27.21 25.96 25.33 4.865 6 0.49  $`E`$ 27.62 27.05 25.26 4.825(d) 18 1.1

(a) AB magnitudes.

(b) Rest-frame equivalent width (Å) estimated from the spectrum, assuming the line to be Lyman $`\alpha `$. Due to very weak continuum emissions and a relatively short exposure of spectroscopy, EW values should have large errors.

(c) Line flux in units of $`10^{17}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. We have not examined the profiles of Lyman $`\alpha `$ emissions because of low S/N ratios of the spectra, although $`A`$ and possibly $`B`$ appear to have wide velocity widths, which may suggest starburst winds.

(d) $`z=0.90`$ if the line is \[OII\].

Fig. 3. — Sky distribution of 43 LAE candidates. North is up and east is to the left. Areas of relatively poor quality have been trimmed. A bright star in the upper left corner, around which detection of LAEs is impossible, has been masked. LAE candidates are shown by circles. Brighter candidates are shown by larger symbols. Dotted, dashed, and solid lines correspond to contours of $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }=0,1`$, and 2, respectively (A top-hat smoothing of $`8h_{70}^1`$ Mpc radius is made over the LAE distribution to compute the local overdensity). The region with $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }2`$ can be approximated by a circle of $`12h_{70}^1`$ Mpc radius.

We conclude from the following reasons that three ($`A`$, $`B`$, $`D`$) are convincing LAEs and $`C`$ is a probable LAE while $`E`$ may be an \[OII\] emitter at $`z0.9`$. First, the emission line of $`A`$ and $`B`$ shows an asymmetric shape with a blueward cutoff; this is a common feature of high-redshift Lyman $`\alpha `$ emission (e.g., Dey et al. 1998). Second, although we cannot rule out the possibility of $`D`$ being an \[OII\] emitter on the basis of its spectrum alone, we have seen in Figure 2 that its $`Ri^{}`$ color is red enough to match the expectation for LAEs. Moreover, Ouchi et al. (2003b) find that $`C`$ and $`D`$ satisfy the selection criteria for LBGs at $`z=4.7\pm 0.5`$ in the $`Vi^{}`$ vs $`i^{}z^{}`$ plane 333The five candidates are located in the central part of the SDF, where we obtained deep $`B,V,z^{}`$ images as well in March - June 2001 (Ouchi et al. 2003b).. Indeed, the $`Vi^{}`$ colors of $`A,B,C,D`$ are $`1.72.5`$, being consistent with the color expected for $`z5`$ galaxies; on the other hand, the color of $`E`$ is $`0.5`$. From the above discussion, we estimate the contamination of our sample to be $`1/5=20\%`$ 444 This value is lower than that estimated by Ouchi et al. (2003a) for a deeper sample, $`40\%`$, on the basis of photometric properties alone. This is probably because the photometric errors in our sample are smaller than those in Ouchi et al..

As an independent check, we have examined the distribution of objects with $`Ri\mathrm{NB711}>0.8`$ but $`Ri<0.4`$, which are probably low-$`z`$ interlopers, and have found that their distribution on the sky is almost uniform and does not correlate with that of the LAE candidates.

Fig. 4. — Number of $`\delta 2`$ spheres in our survey volume predicted by three CDM models. Solid, dotted, and dashed lines indicate the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated, open, and standard CDM models, respectively.

## 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

### 3.1 Large-Scale Structure of LAEs

Figure 3 shows the sky distribution of photometrically selected 43 LAE candidates. We find a remarkable, large-scale clustering; an overdense region lies in the ESE - WNW direction and there are few objects outside this region. To quantify overdensity, we estimate the local surface density of LAEs, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x,y)`$, and compute the surface overdensity $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }(x,y)[\mathrm{\Sigma }(x,y)\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}]/\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is the mean surface density of LAEs. We adopt as $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ the mean surface density in our image, although a larger area is desirable to obtain a more accurate (i.e., global) estimate of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$.

The overdensity contours are drawn in Fig. 3. The projected size of the overdense region ($`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$) is found to be about 20 $`h_{70}^1`$Mpc in width and larger than 50 $`h_{70}^1`$Mpc in length (comoving units) since the region seems to continue outside the image at either side. This elongated overdense structure may be a cross section of a wall-like structure which extends along the sightline (Note that the survey depth is $`33h_{70}^1`$ Mpc). Another possibility may be that we are seeing a ‘redder’ part of a structure which is centered at a redshift smaller than that corresponding to the center of NB711($`z=4.86`$), since all five objects with spectroscopy have $`z\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}4.86`$. This elongated structure includes a region of $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }2`$ which is approximated well by a circle of 12 $`h_{70}^1`$Mpc radius. Since the minimum mass of this circular region is computed to be $`(4\pi /3)\rho _012^33\times 10^{14}h_{70}^1M_{}`$ ($`\rho _0`$ is the mean matter density of the universe), it may become later a massive cluster of galaxies after collapsing to a size of a few Mpc. In the present-day universe, clusters are often embedded in large-scale structures. From these features, it is very likely that this elongated region is a proto large-scale structure at $`z5`$.

### 3.2 Implications on Cold Dark Matter Models

We examine in a simple manner whether or not CDM models can reproduce the observed structure. We focus on the circular region of $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }2`$, since properties of circular regions are predicted easily. We make a reasonable assumption that this region is a sphere of 12 $`h_{70}^1`$Mpc radius in 3-dimensional space with a spatial overdensity of $`\delta =2`$. We consider three CDM models: a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\lambda _0=0.7`$, $`H_0=70`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\sigma _8=0.9`$; an open model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\lambda _0=0`$, $`H_0=70`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\sigma _8=0.9`$; the standard model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$, $`\lambda _0=0`$, $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\sigma _8=0.5`$. We adopt these $`\sigma _8`$ values from the $`\sigma _8`$ \- $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ relation derived by Eke, Cole, & Frenk (1996) for local X-ray clusters.

Using linear perturbation theory, we calculate the number of spheres within our observed volume above $`\delta =2`$ as (cf. Steidel et al. 1998):

$$N=\frac{V_0}{V_\mathrm{S}}_{\delta _\mathrm{L}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _z}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{x^2}{2\sigma _z^2}\right]𝑑x,$$
(1)
where $`V_0`$ is the volume surveyed by our observation ($`1.4\times 10^5h_{70}^3`$ Mpc3), $`V_\mathrm{S}`$ is the volume of an unperturbed sphere whose mass is equal to $`(1+2/b)\frac{4\pi }{3}\rho _0(12h_{70}^1)^3`$, $`\delta _\mathrm{L}`$ is the linearly extrapolated mass overdensity estimated from the observed mass overdensity (we use a fitting-formula in Bernardeau 1994), $`\sigma _z`$ is the rms fluctuation of mass overdensity at $`z=4.86`$ on top-hat filter on a scale of the unperturbed sphere, and $`b`$ is the linear bias parameter for LAEs.

Figure 4 plots $`N`$ against $`b`$ for the three models. We find that the best-fit value of $`b`$ that produces the observed number ($`=1`$) of spheres is $`b6`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated model), $`4`$ (open), and $`15`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$). We can also estimate the lower and upper limits of $`b`$ by imposing $`0.05N4.7`$ ($`95\%`$ C.L. assuming Poisson statistics); we obtain $`b316`$, $`b212`$, and $`b837`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated, open, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ models. Thus, LAEs at $`z5`$ must be highly biased tracers of mass. If we use the linear bias model of Mo & White (1996) which relates the mass of a dark halo with its $`b`$, we obtain, from the best-fit $`b`$ values, the mass of dark haloes hosting our LAEs to be $`1\times 10^{12}`$, $`2\times 10^{12}`$, and $`2\times 10^{12}h_{70}^1M_{}`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated, open, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ models, respectively.

The best-fit values of $`b`$ we find for our LAE candidates are similar to or possibly higher than those for LBGs at $`z34`$ obtained in the following work. From an analysis of a galaxy overdensity of $`10^{15}M_{}`$ at $`z=3.09`$, Steidel et al. (1998) have estimated $`b\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}4`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ flat model. Analyses of the two-point correlation function have given $`b23`$ for LBGs at $`z3`$ and $`4`$ for an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ flat model with the same normalization as we adopt (Porciani & Giavalisco 2002; Ouchi et al. 2001). Higher $`b`$ at $`z5`$ would be reasonable if we recall that $`b`$ for a given halo mass is predicted to increase with $`z`$. Indeed, Ouchi et al. (2003b) obtain $`b6`$ for LBGs at $`z5`$, comparable to our value.

Steidel et al. (1998) and Porciani & Giavalisco (2002) have inferred the mass of haloes hosting LBGs to be of the order of $`10^{12}M_{}`$. The $`b`$ value for $`z5`$ LBGs estimated by Ouchi et al. (2003b) also gives a similar mass. Hence, haloes hosting $`z5`$ LAEs are roughly as massive as those of LBGs at $`z35`$. Pascarelle et al. (1996b) have argued that LAEs (found at $`z2.4`$) are sub-galactic objects from their small sizes. Those LAEs have also been suggested to be very young (Keel et al. 2002). If LAEs at $`z5`$ are also sub-galactic and if LBGs have relatively large stellar masses as suggested by, e.g., Papovich, Dickinson, & Ferguson (2001) and Shapley et al. (2001), then the high mass of haloes hosting $`z5`$ LAEs found here will imply that dark haloes of a given mass host galaxies of a wide range of stellar mass or a wide range of evolutionary stages.

We would like to thank the referee, William Keel, for useful comments. We are grateful to the Subaru Telescope staff for their invaluable help in our observations. H. Furusawa, F. Nakata, and M. Ouchi acknowledge support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) through JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.


text:
# Decreasing critical temperature of gas BEC in spatially periodic potential and relevance to experiments treated by Mott-Hubbard model.

## I Introduction

One of the main characteristics of a BEC is the critical temperature of condensation . As is well known, for free ideal gas (in thermodynamic limit) it can be simply determined and is presented by formula

$$T_{co}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{mk_B}\left[\zeta \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)\right]^{2/3}\left(\frac{N}{V}\right)^{2/3},$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is particle mass, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`\zeta \left(x\right)`$ is the Riemann function, $`N`$ is the number of gas particles in volume $`V`$ . This formula has clear interpretation that the condensation, as a macroscopic quantum phenomenon, starts at the temperature when the de Broglie wavelength $`\lambda _c=\sqrt{\left(2\pi \mathrm{}^2/mk_BT_{co}\right)}`$ of particle’s thermal motion becomes same order quantity with the distance among the neighboring particles $`\left(V/N\right)^{1/3};`$ it ensures the existence of perceptible overlapping of neighboring particle wavefunctions(wave-packets), thus making possible the manifestation of boson-inductive nature of particles.

In real situations, when one however has neither ideal nor free gas, aroused the natural question how much and in what direction changes the critical temperature compared with the one given by Eq.(1), conditioned respectively by interparticle interactions and by existence of trapping external fields (potentials). Interparticle interactions, having crucial importance for dynamic properties of condensate, such as stability, excitations and so on, have, fortunately, feeble influence on critical temperature of gas condensation ,  (note, that just this feature allows us to use the ideal gas model for critical temperature calculations in the following). The influence of the existence of trapping potential has been studied rather frequently and the result about the critical temperature can be qualitatively understood by means of Eq.(1) or reasonings connected with its physics. Actually, the existence(deepening) of trapping potential directly increases the mean density of gas relative to the free state and thereby increases the critical temperature too. Here we want to stress, however, that this reason and consequent growth of critical temperature is relevant to the single-well potential and can not be directly implemented for multi-well potentials, in particular for optical lattices, which attract a great deal of attention thanks to fascinating eventual applications such as matter-wave transport  and diffraction , quantum logic , etc. The reason, that in multi-well cases we should exercise some caution is that while in single-well case the deepening of potential leads only to drawing nearer all the atoms in the trapping potential, in multi-well potentials the reverse tendency exists too. With the deepening of potential, all the particles that have preliminarily been in barrier-type regions, fill the neighbor wells, and thereby increasing the atomic concentration in well-type regions, decrease it in barrier-type regions. In optical lattices, in addition, the mean atomic density is conserved.

The existence of two opposite tendencies for the gas density, the thickening in well-type regions and respective rarefying in intermediate barrier-type regions(see Fig.1), demands a separate considerations of the question , even more so it may be expected that the critical temperature of condensation in periodic in space potential must be a decreasing one depending on the depth of potential, that is it must be straightly opposite to the behavior shown in case of single-well potential. To understand the footing of this assertion one should note that the number of atoms in barrier-type region in general is less than in well-type region, and besides, the redistribution of atoms between barrier-type and well-type regions can be represented as substraction of some (definite) number of atoms from a barrier-type region and their addition into a neighbor (left-hand side or right-hand side, it doesn’t matter) well-type region. But substraction of a definite quantity from a smaller number is more essential for itself than the addition of the same quantity to the larger (or equal) number! That is, the decreasing of the wave-function overlapping in barrier-type regions must be more essential for the total gas condensation, than the overlapping increasing for the well-type regions, and as a consequence it would lead to mentioned decreasing of the critical temperature.

In this paper we will afford a quantitative justification of the mentioned assertion about the decaying behavior of condensation critical temperature (and as a consequence, of the number of condensed particles) for both deepening and/or expanding periodic in space potentials. The form of periodic potential, which will be utilized to this end, will be the biparabolic form . On top of that we shall present a simple and convincing physical explanation, based on regularities of zonal structure of energy spectrum, why the depth-dependence of critical temperature in standing wave trapping potential must be just the contrary to the case of single-well trapping potential.

We are coming to the problem as in ordinary statistical mechanics, that is, via the familiar relation between the number of particles (atoms), temperature and chemical potential. The potential is assumed varying only in one direction, meaning that the atomic gas is free in other two directions. For the energy of interacting degree of freedom the repeated-zone scheme is used, where the quasimomentum plays the same role as the ordinary momentum plays for free degrees of freedom. A direct consequence of obtained for critical temperature regularity, the eventual diminishing of the number of condensed atoms in the deepening potential, also is elucidated:. In addition we calculate the number of atoms in separate energy zones as a function of potential depth in order to enlarge the comparison with the single-potential case. Finally we work out the dependance of critical temperature on space-period of potential and find it to be decreasing too.

The paper is organized as follows: in Sec.II we shortly represent periodic in one dimension, so-called biparabolic potential and Bloch-state solutions for a particle there. In Sec.III and IV we outline the theoretical approach, illustrate the results of numerical calculations about the critical temperature of condensation, number of condensed particles and population of energy zones. Section V contains some comments and conclusions.

## II  Biparabolic potential and dispersion relation for a particle there

In order to gain an overall picture, let us start and carry the exposition in terms of interactions potential, not concretizing, in general, the mechanisms of interaction. However recalling that at the present far off-resonant standing wave laser radiation is used to trap condensed dilute atomic gases, we will also write down the expressions of potential depth and period for this special case. All the numerical simulations will be performed, having in view just this potential.

Relevant to problem Schrődinger’s stationary equation in dimensionless notations is

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Psi }(Z)}{dZ^2}+\left[WU(Z)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(Z)=0,$$
(2)
where $`Z,W`$ and $`U(Z)`$ respectively are dimensionless coordinate along the periodic potential, total energy relevant to this degree of freedom, and potential energy of the particle (atom) there. They are related with the physical coordinate $`z,`$ energy $`E`$, and potential energy $`V(z)`$ by means of the following formulas:

$$Z=2\pi z/l,\text{ }W=E/E_r,\text{ }U(Z)=V(z)/E_r,$$
(3)
where $`l`$ is the space period of potential, $`E_r`$=$`\left(2\pi \mathrm{}\right)^2/2ml^2`$ is the quantum recoil energy of periodic potential, $`m`$ is the particle (atomic) mass.

As a model of periodic field we choose the biparabolic form,

$$U(Z)=\frac{1(1)^m}{2}U+(1)^m\mathrm{𝕜}(Zm\pi )^2,$$
(4)
with $`(m1/2)\pi Z(m+1/2)\pi `$ for any integer $`m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}.`$ Here $`U`$ is the depth of potential, $`\mathrm{𝕜}=2U/\pi ^2`$ is a coefficient assuring the continuity of potential, consisting of series of truncated and turned parabolas, as is shown in Fig.2 by a solid line. The potential energy is counted from the bottom of the periodic wells.

Note that this potential can also be regarded as a good approximation to a potential created for a two-level atom by a standing wave of laser radiation, far off-resonant with optical transition. This relevant standing wave potential is depicted in Fig.2 by a dashed-line, and then one has

$$2\pi /l=2k,\text{ }V(Z)=4\left|dE_L\right|^2/\mathrm{}(\omega \omega _0),$$
(5)
where $`k=\omega /c`$ is the laser wavenumber, $`d`$ is the dipole matrix element of optical transition of frequency $`\omega _0,`$ $`E_L`$ is the amplitude of laser electric field for both traveling waves, composing the standing wave.

Bloch-solutions of Eq.(2) with potential (4) results in a following dispersion relation:

$$\mathrm{cos}\left[2\pi P\right]=1+2G_{11}(W)G_{22}(W)=12G_{12}(W)G_{21}(W),$$
(6)
where $`P`$ is the particle’s quasimomentum in units $`2\pi \mathrm{}/l`$( =$`2\mathrm{}k`$ in laser standing wave case), and the normalized energy $`W`$ is presented in the second equation of (3). Present in (6) functions $`G_{ij}(W)`$ $`(i,j=1,2)`$ are expressed via the linearly independent solutions $`u_1(Z)`$ and $`u_2(Z)`$ in the well-type region, $`\stackrel{~}{u}_1(Z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}_2(Z)`$ in the neighbor barrier-type region, and their first derivatives at the connective point $`Z=\pi /2`$ as

$$G_{ij}(W)=\left[u_i(Z)\frac{d\stackrel{~}{u}_j(Z)}{dZ}\stackrel{~}{u}_j(Z)\frac{d\stackrel{~}{u}_i(Z)}{dZ}\right]_{Z=\pi /2},\text{ }i,j=1,2\text{ },$$
(7)
$$u_1(Z)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝕜}}Z^2}{2}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha ,1/2;\sqrt{\mathrm{𝕜}}Z^2),$$
(8)
$$u_2(Z)=Z\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝕜}}Z^2}{2}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha +1/2,3/2;\sqrt{\mathrm{𝕜}}Z^2),$$
(9)
$$\alpha =\frac{1}{4}\left[1\frac{W}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝕜}}}\right]$$
(10)
and $`\stackrel{~}{u}_{1,2}(Z)`$ are obtained from $`u_{1,2}(Z)`$ respectively by means of substitutions $`Z^2i(Z\pi )^2,`$ $`\alpha \beta =\frac{1}{4}\left[1i\frac{WU}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝕜}}}\right].`$ Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{},..;\mathrm{})`$ is the confluent hypergeometric function. Let us note that the functions $`\stackrel{~}{u}_{1,2}(Z)`$ also are real functions of coordinate $`Z`$ and physical parameters, although they contain imaginary argument $`i(Z\pi )^2`$ and complex parameter $`\beta `$.

## III Critical temperature and number of condensed atoms as a function of depth of periodic in space potential

Our analysis of ideal gas critical temperature and number of condensed particles (atoms) will be worked out by the familiar relation between the mean number of particles, temperature and chemical potential, turning from the summation over energy spectrum to integration over the momenta. For the energies corresponding to along the potential’s periodicity degree of freedom, it is convenient use the repeated-zone scheme of energies where each value of energy specifies a single value of quasimomentum (see Fig.3). Quasimomentum naturally plays the role of ordinary momentum. In this representation the mentioned relation can be written in form

$$2\frac{V}{l^3}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{(i1)/2}{\overset{i/2}{}}𝑑P\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d\stackrel{}{P}_{}}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{W_{}+W\mu }{k_BT}\right]1}=N.$$
(11)
$`V`$ and $`N`$ are the gas volume and the mean number of particles. The momentum $`d\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$ (in the free-motion $`X0Y`$ plane) is normalized, as the quasimomentum $`P,`$ in $`2\pi \mathrm{}/l`$ units ($`=2\mathrm{}k`$ in laser standing wave case), and the energetic quantities $`W_{},`$ $`\mu `$ and $`k_BT`$ are normalized in units $`E_r`$ ($`=(2\mathrm{}k)^2/2m`$ in laser standing wave case) as the energy $`W.`$ Note that in normalized form $`W_{}=\stackrel{}{P}_{}^2.`$ Integration over the $`P`$-momenta is divided into integration over consequent zones $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ . And finally, integration over the negative values is changed into positive-values too, due to which the coefficient $`2`$ has appeared in left-hand side of (11). It is to be noted here that the state density is zero at $`P=0`$ (as for a free gas) and the twofold repeating of the point $`P=0`$ in (11) does not matter.

Performing the integration over $`\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$ (free degrees of freedom), instead of (11) we arrive at

$$2\frac{(\pi /d)^3Vk_BT}{\pi ^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{(i1)/2}{\overset{i/2}{}}𝑑P\mathrm{ln}[1\mathrm{exp}[\frac{\mu W(P)}{k_BT}]]=N.$$
(12)
Because of the zero state-density at $`P=0,`$ $`\stackrel{}{P}_{}=0`$ (ground state), the critical temperature $`T_c`$ and the number of condensed particles $`N_c`$ are afforded to be determined in full analogy with the free ideal gas, that is to consider (12) as a determination of $`\mu `$ for a given $`N,`$ if $`T`$ $`T_c,`$ but for lower temperatures $`T`$ $`T_c`$ to fix the value of $`\mu (TT_c)=\mu (T=T_c)`$, and consider (12) as a relation for determination of the number of noncondensed particles $`N_{nc}.`$ For the last case, when the gas is cooled lower than the temperature of condensation, the number of condensed atoms is

$$N_c=NN_{nc}.$$
(13)
Equations (12), (6)and (13), the second of which determines a one-valued implicit function $`W(P)`$ in repeated-zone picture, are the basis of the reminder of this paper.

Let us now present the scheme of calculations, which will be used here. To determine $`T_c`$ we first insert the values of interest of $`N,`$ $`V`$ and $`l`$ into (12) and consider it as a relation, which determines the chemical potential $`\mu `$ as a function of temperature $`T`$ for a given dispersion relation $`W(P)`$. Since the seeking functional dependence $`\mu (T)`$ can be obtained only by means of numerical integration in(12) and $`\mu `$ sits in integrand, we preliminarily cast the $`T(\mu )`$ dependence and hereupon turn to $`\mu (T)`$ function numerically, using the one-valued behavior dependences. In its turn to obtain the $`T(\mu )`$ dependence we give values to $`\mu `$ and performing the numerical integration in (12) find the corresponding values of $`T`$. The stage of integration demands of course to fix the depth of the potential too, to have the $`W(P)`$dependence. The latter we get by reversing the dispersion relation (6) numerically, where the repeated-zone picture is very convenient.

Construction of the $`T(\mu )`$ dependence in practice starts from some value of $`\mu ,`$greater than the numerical value of the particle energy $`W_{\mathrm{min}}`$ for the chosen potential, and gradually move to smaller values of $`\mu .`$ The possible minimal (having solution of (12) ) value of $`\mu `$ is $`\mu =W_{\mathrm{min}},`$ and corresponding to it value of temperature, as solution of (12), just specifies the critical temperature $`T_c.`$ Some graphs of the $`\mu (T)`$ function for five values of potential depth $`U`$, constructed in mentioned above way, are depicted in Fig.4. In accordance with the described procedure of calculations, the value of critical temperature for each graph-conditions is determined by the corresponding left-hand side border point of graph. Now let us concentrate attention on the fact that the graphs from right to left correspond to lifting values of potential depth, which immediately shows the anticipated in Introduction behavior: the critical temperature of ideal gas condensation decreases as the potential depth increases.

It should be noted specially, that the determination of the border points of graphs (and corresponding values of $`T_c`$) demands a great caution of numerical integration procedure, since the integrand at $`\mu W_{\mathrm{min}}`$ (near-border values) rapidly increases near the lower edge of the first energy zone, that is near $`P=0,`$ where $`W(P=0)=W_{\mathrm{min}},`$ $`\mu W(P=0)0,`$ $`1\mathrm{exp}\left[(\mu W(P=0))/k_BT\right]1`$, and respectively $`\mathrm{ln}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left[(\mu W(P=0))/k_BT\right]\right]1.`$ Fortunately, the theoretical value of the border (maximal) value of $`\mu `$ is determined by exact condition $`\mu _{\mathrm{max}}=W_{\mathrm{min}},`$which can be fulfilled as precisely as it is possible within the range of computer capability. The minimal accuracy for the (dimensionless) difference has been chosen $`10^8.`$ Besides, the procedure of integration in (12) was replaced by corresponding summation, dividing the first zone quasimomentum range into $`10^3`$ equal parts, and the first of them, which is about the $`P=0,`$ already into $`10^4`$ equal parts. As a result, the time consumption of our PC for each point on the presented graphs was about 30-40 minutes.

In Fig.5 we explicitly present the dependance of gas critical temperature on the depth of periodic potential. It has a monotonically decreasing nature everywhere, rather minor in small-depth range and rapid in intermediate-depth range of the potential. In the range of greater depths the rate of decreasing , naturally, slows down.

The number of condensed atoms , as it directly follows from the mentioned behavior of critical temperature, decreases with the growth of potential depth too. In addition, since the critical temperature monotonically tends to zero as a function of $`U`$, for arbitrary chosen low temperature $`T`$ there is always some potential depth, for which the critical temperature becomes equal to $`T,`$ and starting from which no more condensation takes place. This behavior of the number of condensed atoms is shown in Fig.6. The point where the graph touches the depth axis, just corresponds to the peculiar value of potential depth, for which the critical temperature becomes equal to the chosen temperature of the gas ($`0.1T_{0c}`$ in this case). For dipper potentials ($`U>13`$) the critical temperature is lower then the gas temperature and because of it no condensation takes place.

Before proceeding to other results obtained, let us turn to other language of presentation, explaining why the number of condensed particles decreases with the increasing depths of the periodic potential, which is the equivalent of critical temperature decreasing. This representation is based on the behavior of energy spectrum for increasing depths of potential and gives, perhaps, more detailed and transparent explanation, than the previous one, based on behavior of particle density. It easily explains the studying regularity also in single-potential case. Indeed, in a single-potential the particle has discrete set of energy levels $`E_n`$ $`(n=0,1,\mathrm{})`$ of bounded states (only they are relevant to the problem under hand). The probability of population for each excited level, relative to population of the ground energy level, is determined by the Boltzmann factor $`\mathrm{exp}\left[E_n/k_BT\right]`$ in thermally equilibrium state. The energy $`E_n`$ of each excited energy level can be also interpreted as the distance from ground energy level, choosing without loss of generality the energy of the latter zero. The deepening of a single potential, as is well known increases distances between energy levels and therefore, between each of them and ground energy level. As a result, the population of all excited energy levels decreases. In addition taking into account that the total probability of level occupation (population) remains the same unity, we immediately arrive to the result, that the occupation probability of the ground energy level must increase due to this deepening of the potential. But the condensed gas is just the particles in ground energy level and therefore, the deepening of a single-potential results in increasing of condensed particles, or which is equivalent, in increasing of condensation critical temperature.

In periodic-potential case the situation is, nevertheless, different. The spectrum of a particle has a zonal structure. And while the deepening of potential removes from each other the energy bands, it simultaneously narrows all these bands, in particular the first one, which plays the dominant role in phenomenon of condensation. In order to easily understand the resultant seeking behavior in this situation, it is convenient to present the first energy band as a collection of discrete energy levels ( in case of finite, even arbitrary large, number of repeated potential wells this approach is absolutely correct ). To the phenomenon of condensation is relevant, by definition, only the ground state. Repeating the above discussion about the behavior of level occupation probabilities for deepening potentials we see, that the occupation probabilities increase in all excited levels in the first energy band and decrease in all upper energy bands. But since the condensation appears at low temperatures, when the low-energy levels are mainly populated, the increase of population in excited first-bound levels plays more important role, than the decrease of population in upper energy levels. Therefore the increase of potential depth, at least for low temperatures, must result in increment of population in the total excited states, including all the excited levels of the first energy band and all excited energy bands. This implies that one has decrement of population in ground energy level, relevant to the state of condensation. So, regularity of the ground state population for a series of deepening periodic potentials is opposite to the case of a single potential: the number of condensed particles is decreasing and the critical temperature of condensation is respectively decreasing. It is not needless to note, that the presented discussion, based on the behavior of energy spectrum and relevant Boltzmann function can help us understand qualitatively the behavior of number of condensed atoms, or equivalently, the critical temperature in other potential forms too, particularly in double well potential.

In order to give somewhat auxiliary elucidation to the problem under hand, we have calculated the populations of each energy band as a function of depth of periodic potential for some, over-critical, temperature, when not only the first energy band is effectively populated. The results are presented in Fig.7(point lines). As is seen, the population of the first energy band increases monotonically as the depth of periodic potential increases, while the populations of the all excited energy bands, vice versa, decrease. It also gives an opportunity to see, that these regularities for energy band populations in periodic-wells potential precisely coincide with the regularities of the level-populations for single-well potential. This implies, in particular, that the growing behavior of the critical temperature of condensation would have been obtained in periodic potential case, if one had taken as a ground level the first energy zone totally, which is however incorrect by definition, even for very deep potentials.

In envisioned circumstances some interest may also present the total number of particles, trapped by the periodic potential. That are the particles, energies of which are less than the depth of potential. Because of a zonal structure of energy spectrum, in general we should expect a stepwise dependence of this number on the potential depth. The results are illustrated in Fig.8. At the origin (point $`a_1`$) with $`U=0`$, of course there are no trapped particles. The piece $`a_1b_1`$ corresponds to situation when the rising potential captures more and more of the first, narrowing at that, energy band, naturally increasing the number of trapped particles. Since the energy bands are distanted from each other by energy gaps, the pieces corresponding to the second, third, etc. bands are $`a_2b_2`$, $`a_3b_3,etc`$ (the upper range is not presented), distanted from each other by intermediate pieces $`b_1a_2,`$ $`b_2a_3,`$ etc. All the regularities of the graph, such as the rate of increasing, saturation, etc., are in agreement with the presented picture, viewing the distribution of quantum states within the energy bands and their thermal population as a function of potential depth.

## IV Critical temperature as a function of period of periodic potential

Another side of interest presents the dependence of critical temperature of condensation on the period of periodic in space potential. In case of laser-induced standing wave potentials the variation of the period can be obtained varying the angle between two waves, composing the standing wave. Denoting by $`\theta `$ the half of supplementary angle between these two wave vectors (see Fig.9), we get $`k_{SW}=2k\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and respectively $`l=\pi /k\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ $`\theta =0`$ corresponds to counterpropagating case, where the period is minimal. We have found convenient to present the $`l`$-dependence of critical temperature as a $`\theta `$-dependence. The scheme of calculations is the same with the one described in previous section. Numerical calculations had been worked out for two ($`(a)U=1`$ and $`(b)U=6`$ ) depths of potential and the results are plotted in Fig.10. The critical temperature, as is seen decreases as the period of potential increases, monotonically approaching zero.

We have not been able to understand this result on the base of picture about the overlapping of particles’ material waves (see Introduction), but it is easy to do, using the picture of energy spectrum and thermal population of energy levels there. Really, the spatial expansion of periodic potential results in narrowing of all energy bands and simultaneously in widening of the energy gaps. But it is the same regularity as it was for the deepening potential, and therefore the resultant functional dependance also is the same: the critical temperature decreases as the spatial period increases.

Of course, an analogous regularity exists also for the number of condensed atoms, but we do not see the necessity of presenting this concrete form.

## V Concluding remarks

So, the critical temperature of condensation and respectively the number of condensed particles in a trapping periodic potential must be less than it is in free state.

An important question is, of course, how much ”dangerous” are these results for experimental situations, typical for condensates trapped in optical standing wave potentials. The critical value of thermal energy of free gas condensation in typical range of densities $`10^{11}10^{12}`$ $`cm^3`$, as is well known is far subrecoil ( is on the order of one percent or less). This implies that such a gas may be trapped, in principle, by means of an optical standing wave potential with the depth of the same order of magnitude. Looking at the Figs.5 and 6 we see that this subrecoil range of potentials lies close to the origin of horizontal axis, where the lowering of graphs ( critical temperature or/and number of condensed particles) is unessential. Moreover, the characteristic parameters of condensation in practice stay unchanged up to depths $`U/E_r1`$, that is in so called shallow potentials (note that our scale of recoil energy $`E_r=(2\mathrm{}k)^2/2m`$ is four times greater than the usually using scale $`\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$). However, in deeper periodic potentials with $`U/E_r5÷12`$(in usual scale $`20÷50`$), which are exploited for strong localization of super-cooled condensed gases within separate wells, the critical temperature of condensation falls about one order and the gas can get out from the condensation state.

The comparison with the real experimental situation involves another important parameter too: it is the time, especially in cases when the gas is filled into the standing wave potential already being in condensed state (obtained in magneto-optical traps). The matter is that the above presented theory pertains to thermally equilibrium gas in the given external potential field. The gas, finding itself in the periodic field, preliminarily is not in that state, but it would tend to that state in the course of time. The dynamics of approaching to the thermally equilibrium state is, in general, complicated and requires a separate and accurate consideration, but on qualitative level it may be expected, that two processes would determine the transfer of gas into statistical-mechanical equilibrium state in the case under consideration. The first one is the process of interparticle collisions, leading to thermal equilibrium, and the second one is the tunneling of particle through the potential barrier between neighboring potential wells, providing the establishment of zonal structure for particle energy spectrum. Denoting their characteristic times by $`\tau _{col}`$ and $`\tau _{tun}`$ respectively, it will be expected the ultimate thermally equilibrium distribution (with lower critical temperature and less number of condensed particles) should be attained in times $`t\tau _{col},`$ $`\tau _{tun}.`$

Let’s note that from the viewpoint of our results the distortion of gas BEC-state in a deepening periodic potential and its consequent revival in a shallowing one, observed experimentally in  as a loss and revival of phase, may be accounted simply as a respective transfer to noncondensed state and consequent return into the condensed one, as is predicted by the above presented theory for a rather slowly deepening and shallowing periodic potential. All the more, that the totally distorting potential depths$`U/E_r^o=22`$ ($`=5.5`$ in our $`E_r`$-scale) in  and $`44`$ ($`=11`$ in our $`E_r`$-scale) in , lie in the region of our curve of Fig5, where the condensed state must be depressed in practice. Plus, that in three-dimensional standing wave case  the analogous to Fig5 curve must decay more rapidly than our, calculated for one-dimensional standing wave.

The detailed elusidation of results of these experiments in view of presented here theory will be accomplished and presented elswhere.

## VI Acknowledgments

We are grateful to T.H.Bergeman for useful remarks. This paper is supported by the Armenian State Scientific Grant No. 0888.