1: \documentstyle[aps,epsfig]{revtex}
2: \begin{document}
3: \draft
4: %\tighten
5: \title{Interplay of friction and noise and enhancement of
6: disoriented chiral condensate}
7: \author{\bf A. K. Chaudhuri \cite{byline}}
8: \address{
9: Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre\\
10: 1-AF, Bidhan Nagar, Calcutta- 700 064}
11: %\date{Started writting on 26, august 2000}
12: %Submitted to Phys. Rev. C on August, 1999
13: \maketitle
14: \begin{abstract}
15: Using the Langevin equation for the linear $\sigma$ model, we
16: have investigated the effect of friction and noise on the
17: possible disoriented chiral condensate formation. Friction and
18: noise are supposed to suppress longwavelength oscillations and
19: growth of disoriented chiral condensate domains. Details
20: simulation shows that for heavy ion collisions, interplay of
21: friction and noise occur in such a manner that formation of
22: disoriented chiral condensate domains are enhanced.
23:
24: \end{abstract}
25:
26: \pacs{25.75.+r, 12.38.Mh, 11.30.Rd}
27:
28: In recent years there is much excitement about the possibility of
29: formation of disoriented chiral condensate (DCC). The idea was
30: suggested by Rajagopal and Wilczek \cite{ra93} and also by
31: Bjorken and others \cite{bj93}. In hadron-hadron or in heavy ion
32: collisions, a macroscopic region of space-time may be created
33: within which the chiral order parameter is not oriented in the
34: same direction in the internal $O(4)=SU(2) \times SU(2)$ space as
35: the ordinary vacuum. The misaligned condensate has the same quark
36: content and quantum numbers as do pions and essentially
37: constitute a classical pion field. The system will finally
38: relaxes to the true vacuum and in the process can emit coherent
39: pions. Possibility of producing classical pion fields in heavy
40: ion collisions had been discussed earlier by Anslem \cite{an91}.
41: DCC formation in hadronic or in heavy ion collisions can lead to
42: the spectacular events that some portion of the detector will be
43: dominated by charged pions or by neutral pions only. In contrast,
44: in a general event all the three pions ($\pi^+$,$\pi^-$ and
45: $\pi^0$) will be equally well produced. This may then be the
46: natural explanation of the so called Centauro events \cite{la80}.
47:
48: Microscopic physics governing DCC phenomena is not well known. It
49: is in the regime of non-perturbative QCD as well as nonlinear
50: phenomena, theoretical understanding of both of which are
51: limited. One thus uses some effective field theory like linear
52: $\sigma$ model with various approximations to simulate the chiral
53: phase transition \cite{rand,gavi,asak}. In the linear sigma model
54: chiral degrees of freedom are described by the the real O(4)
55: field $\Phi=(\sigma,\roarrow{\pi})$. Because of the isomorphism
56: between the groups $O(4)$ and $SU(2) \times SU(2)$, the later
57: being the appropriate group for two flavour QCD, linear sigma
58: model can effectively model the low energy dynamic of QCD
59: \cite{bo96}. Explicit simulation with linear sigma model, indicate
60: that DCC depends critically on the initial field configurations.
61: With quench like initial condition DCC domains of 4-5 fm in size
62: can form \cite{asak}. Initial conditions other than quench lead
63: to much smaller domain size. Quench scenario assume that the
64: effective potential governing the evolution of long wave length
65: modes immediately after the phase transition at $T_c$ turns to
66: classical one at zero temperature. It can happen only in case of
67: very rapid cooling and expansion of the fireball. In heavy ion
68: collisions quench like initial conditions are unlikely.
69:
70: Very recently, effect of external media on possible DCC is being
71: investigated \cite{gr97,bi97,zu00,ri98,ch99a,ch99b,ch99c,ch00}.
72: Indeed, in heavy ion collisions, even if some region is created
73: where chiral symmetry is restored, that region will be
74: continually interacting with surrounding medium (mostly pions).
75: The surrounding medium can be conveniently modelled by a white
76: noise source and one can use Langevin equation for linear
77: $\sigma$ model to simulate the DCC formation under the influence
78: of external media. Recently it has been shown that in $\phi^4$
79: model, hard modes can be integrated out to obtain a Langevin type
80: of equations for the soft modes \cite{gr97}. Biro and Greiner
81: \cite{bi97} using a Langevin equation for the linear $\sigma$
82: model, investigated the interplay of friction and white noise on
83: the evolution and stability of {\em zero mode} pion fields. In
84: general friction and noise reduces the amplification of zero
85: modes. But in some trajectories, large amplification may occur
86: \cite{bi97}. We also obtain similar results \cite{ch99a}.
87:
88: It is popular expectation that friction and noise will reduce the
89: DCC formation probability. The expectation was found to be true
90: in one dimensional calculations with zero modes only
91: \cite{bi97,ch99a}. To see how far this expectation is valid when
92: higher modes are included, in the present letter we have
93: investigated DCC formation in 3+1 dimension. Two scenarios were
94: considered. In scenario I, we use the equation of motion of
95: linear $\sigma$ model with quenched initial condition to simulate
96: DCC formation without friction and noise. In scenario II, we
97: solve the Langevin equation for linear $\sigma$ model, with the
98: same quenched initial condition to simulate DCC formation in
99: presence of friction and noise. Comparative study of these two
100: scenarios reveal that certainly the noise and friction affect DCC
101: formation probability. However contrary to one dimensional
102: calculations, large DCC formation is seen in scenario II rather
103: than in scenario I. Indeed, it will be shown that large DCC
104: domains are formed in scenario II only, not in scenario I. This
105: effect is particular to heavy ion collisions as explained below.
106:
107: The Langevin equation for linear $\sigma$ model, at temperature
108: $T$ can be written as,
109:
110: \begin{equation}
111: [\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \tau^2} +(\frac{1}{\tau}+\eta_i)
112: \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}
113: -\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} -\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} -
114: \frac{1}{\tau^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial Y^2}
115: +\lambda (\Phi^2 - f^2_\pi -T^2/2)] \Phi
116: = \zeta_i (\tau ,x,y,Y)\label{1}
117: \end{equation}
118:
119: \noindent where $\Phi_i=(\sigma,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3)$. $\tau$ is
120: the proper time and Y is the rapidity, the appropriate
121: coordinates to describe heavy ion collisions. $\eta_{\sigma,\pi}$
122: and $\zeta_{\sigma,\pi}$ are the friction coefficients and the
123: white noise for the $\sigma$ and $\pi$ fields. We note that if
124: the friction and the noise terms are dropped from eq.\ref{1} the
125: resulting equation is for the scenario I, i.e. just the equation
126: of motion of linear $\sigma$ model.
127:
128: The noise source $\zeta$ and the friction $\eta$ are not
129: independent. They are related by the fluctuations-dissipation
130: relation. We use white noise source with zero average and
131: correlation as demanded from the fluctuation-dissipation
132: relation,
133:
134: \begin{mathletters}
135: \begin{eqnarray}
136: <\zeta_a(\tau,x,y,Y)> =&&0\\
137: <\zeta_a(\tau,x,y,Y)\zeta_b(\tau^\prime,x^\prime,y^\prime,Y^\prime)>
138: =&& 2 T \eta \frac{1}{\tau} \delta(\tau-\tau^\prime) \delta(x-x^\prime)
139: \delta(y-y^\prime)
140: \delta(Y-Y^\prime) \delta_{ab}
141: %\int <\zeta_a(\tau_1,x_1,y_1,Y_1)\zeta_b(\tau_2,x_2,y_2,Y_2)> d^4x
142: %=&& 2 T \eta \delta_{ab}
143: \end{eqnarray}
144: \label{2}
145: \end{mathletters}
146:
147: \noindent where $a,b$ corresponds to $\pi$ or $\sigma$ fields.
148: A few words are necessary about the use of temperature in the
149: noise term. We are approximating DCC, which is a non-equilibrium
150: phenomena as a equilibrium one. Such an approximation is valid
151: when the system is not far from equilibrium. Indeed, fluctuation-dissipation
152: theorem is valid for such a system only.
153:
154: Friction coefficients is an important ingredient for the Langevin
155: equation. In our earlier study, we have assumed that both
156: $\sigma$ and $\pi$ evolve under the influence of a common
157: friction \cite{ch99c,ch00}. In the present work we treat them
158: separately. $\sigma$ and $\pi$ fields evolve under the influence
159: of friction, appropriate for them. Friction coefficients for
160: $\sigma$ and $\pi$ have been calculated by Rischke \cite{ri98},
161:
162: \begin{mathletters}
163: \begin{eqnarray}
164: \eta_\pi =&& (\frac{4 \lambda f_\pi}{N})^2 \frac{m_\sigma^2}{4 \pi
165: m_\pi^3} \sqrt{1-\frac{4 m_\pi^2}{m_\sigma^2}}
166: \frac{1-exp(-m_\pi/T)}{1-exp(-m_\sigma^2/2 m_\pi T)}
167: \frac{1}{exp(m_\sigma^2-2m_\pi^2)/2m_\pi T)-1}\\
168: \eta_\sigma =&& (\frac{4 \lambda f_\pi}{N})^2 \frac{N-1}{8\pi
169: m_sigma}
170: \sqrt{1-\frac{4 m_\pi^2}{m_\sigma^2}} \coth \frac{m_\sigma}{4T}
171: \end{eqnarray} \label{3}
172: \end{mathletters}
173:
174: Solution of eq.\ref{1} require initial fields configurations.
175: They were distributed according to a random Gaussian with,
176:
177: \begin{mathletters}
178: \begin{eqnarray}
179: <\sigma>=&&(1-f(r))f_\pi \\
180: <\pi_i>=&&0 \\
181: <\sigma^2>-<\sigma>^2 = <\pi_i^2>-<\pi_i>^2= && f_\pi^2/6 f(r)\\
182: < \dot{\sigma}>=&& <\dot{\pi_i}>=0\\
183: <\dot{\sigma}^2>=<\dot{\pi}^2>=&& 4 f_\pi^2/6 f(r)
184: \end{eqnarray}
185: \label{4}
186: \end{mathletters}
187:
188: The interpolation function
189:
190: \begin{equation}
191: f(r)=[1+exp(r-r_0)/\Gamma)]^{-1}
192: \end{equation}
193:
194: \noindent separates the central region from the rest of the
195: system. We have taken $r_0$=6.4 fm and $\Gamma$=.7 fm. The
196: initial field configurations corresponds to quench like condition
197: \cite{ra93} and as told in the beginning are unlikely to be
198: obtained in a heavy ion collisions. We still use it as they are
199: the most favourable initial conditions to produce DCC like
200: phenomena. In the simulation results presented below, the initial
201: time and temperature were assumed to be $\tau_i$=1fm/c and
202: $T_i$=200 MeV. Effect of expansion was included through the
203: cooling law,
204:
205: \begin{equation}
206: T(\tau) = T_i \frac{\tau_i}{\tau}
207: \end{equation}
208:
209: \noindent which is rather fast for heavy ion collisions. However,
210: we choose to use it as DCC formation probability increases if the
211: system cools rapidly.
212:
213: With the initial conditions and the cooling law most appropriate
214: for DCC formation, we have solved the Langevin equation (scenario
215: II) on a $32^3$ lattice, with lattice spacing of a=1 fm, using a
216: time step of a/10 fm/c. We also use periodic boundary conditions.
217: The equation of motion for linear $\sigma$ model (scenario I) was
218: solved similarly, with identical initial conditions. We have
219: continued the evolution of the fields for about 10 fm/c.
220:
221: We define a correlation function at rapidity $Y$ as
222: \cite{asak}
223:
224: \begin{equation}
225: C(r,\tau) = \frac{ \sum_{i,j} \pi(i) \dot \pi(j)}{\sum_{i,j}
226: |\pi(i)| |\pi(j)|}
227: \end{equation}
228:
229: \noindent where the sum is taken over those grid points i and j
230: such that the distance between i and j is r. In fig.1, we have
231: compared the correlation function in scenario I and II. Initially
232: there is no correlation length beyond the lattice spacing of 1
233: fm. Correlations starts to develop at later time. It increases
234: for about 7fm/c, then decreases again. Interestingly, larger
235: correlation length is obtained in the scenario II, than in
236: scenario I. Thus at 7 fm/c, correlation length in scenario I is
237: only $\sim$ 2 fm, while that in scenario II is $\sim$ 4 fm.
238: Increased correlation in scenario II is contrary to popular
239: expectation that friction and noise will reduce correlation.
240:
241: Enhancement of correlation length in scenario II, with friction
242: and noise is corroborated in the pion field distribution also. In
243: fig.2, we have shown the xy contour plot of the $\pi_2$
244: component, at rapidity Y=0. Field distribution at $\tau_i$=1 fm/c
245: and after 7 fm/c of evolution are shown. Initially there is no
246: correlation. Domain like structure is seen both in scenario I and
247: II, after 7fm/c evolution . The positive and negative components
248: of the $\pi_2$ separates out. Here again, much larger domains are
249: formed in scenario II than in scenario I. It may be noted that
250: domain like structure seen in one of the component of $\pi$ field
251: do not necessarily convert into physical domains. They are
252: indication of larger correlation length only. Physical domain
253: should contain either charged or neutral pion only. Thus in
254: physical domain neutral to total pion ratio should differ
255: considerably from the isospin symmetric value of 1/3.
256:
257: Assuming that the pion density is proportional to the amplitude's
258: square, in fig.3, we have shown the contour plot of the neutral
259: to total pion ratio, at rapidity $Y=0$.
260:
261: \begin{equation}
262: R_3(x,y,Y,\tau)=\frac{\pi^2_3}{\pi^2_1+\pi^2_2+\pi^2_3}
263: \end{equation}
264:
265: Very small or large value of the ratio over an extended spatial
266: zone will be definite indication of domain formation. As
267: expected, initially there is no domain like structure. In
268: scenario I, we donot find any large domain like structure in the
269: ratio $R_3$ even after 7 fm/c evolution. Thus while $\pi_2$
270: component of the $\pi$ field shows domain like structure at 7
271: fm/c, in terms of physical pions there is no domain structure in
272: scenario I. Large DCC domains are not formed in linear $\sigma$
273: model, even with quenched initial condition and fast cooling law.
274: In scenario II however we can find some extended zone with large
275: or very small value of the ratio $R_3$. Thus physical pions
276: evolve into domain like structure in scenario II, with noise and
277: friction, rather than in scenario I.
278:
279: Present simulation indicate that friction and noise do indeed
280: enhance DCC domain formation possibility. The simulation results
281: are contrary to expectation from one dimensional calculations. As
282: such noise and friction are supposed to reduce the amplification
283: of long wavelength modes. We believe that present results are
284: particular to heavy ion collisions where proper time and rapidity
285: are the most appropriate coordinate systems. In this coordinate
286: system, correlation of the noise decreases with (proper) time
287: ($1/\tau$ dependence, see eq.\ref{2}). Physically the source of
288: noise i.e. the medium surrounding the zone where chiral symmetry
289: is restored, fly away with time, reducing the correlation.
290: However, the friction coefficients $\eta_{\sigma,\pi}$ remains
291: more or less same in the temperature range considered. Thus at
292: later time evolution of the fields are determined mainly
293: by the friction.
294: We also not that $\eta_\sigma$ is considerably large
295: ($\sim 3 fm^{-1}$). Then once the trajectory enters into unstable
296: regime, large friction opposes its tendency to come out of the
297: instability. Friction forces the trajectory to remain in the
298: unstable regime for longer duration. Indeed, in one dimension, we
299: have obtained similar result \cite{ch99a,ch99b}. 3d simulation
300: confirms our results in one dimension.
301:
302: Though noise and friction enhances the DCC formation probability,
303: it may not be easy to detect it. In fig.4, we have shown the
304: rapidity distribution of the neutral to pion ratio,
305:
306: \begin{equation}
307: \frac{N_{\pi_0}}{N_{\pi_{total}}}=\frac{\int \pi^2_3 dx dy}{\int
308: (\pi^2_1+\pi^2_2+\pi^2_3) dx dy}
309: \end{equation}
310:
311: \noindent at different time intervals. Through out the range of
312: rapidity, the ratio fluctuate about its isospin symmetric value
313: of 1/3. As expected fluctuations are larger in scenario II than
314: in scenario I. However, if we remember that the pions that will
315: be detected are integrated over time, then it is obvious that the
316: fluctuations will be considerably less. Thus even in
317: event-by-event analysis, it will be difficult to tell about DCC
318: formation from rapidity distribution of pions only. Much more
319: study is needed to resolve the issue.
320:
321: In summary, we have considered disoriented chiral condensate
322: domain formation in two scenarios, one without noise and friction
323: (scenario I) and the other with noise and friction (scenario II).
324: In scenario I, equation of motion for the linear $\sigma$ model
325: fields and in scenario II, the Langevin equations for linear
326: $\sigma$ model were solved. Using the most ideal conditions for
327: DCC formation, i.e. quenched initial condition and fast cooling,
328: we have evolved the fields for 10 fm/c. It was seen that in both
329: the scenario, $\pi \pi$ correlation increases with time till 7
330: fm/c, it then decreases. Larger correlation is obtained in
331: scenario II than in scenario I. Evidence of increased correlation
332: is also obtained from the contour plot of pion field. $\pi_2$
333: component of the pion field shows domain like structure. Positive
334: and negative component of fields separates out at late time. Here
335: again, domain like structure is more prominent in scenario II
336: than in scenario I. Contour plot of the neutral to total pion
337: ratio suggest that though domain like structure is seen in one
338: component of the $\pi$ field, there is no (large) physical domain
339: formation in scenario I. On the contrary, large physical domains
340: are seen to be formed in scenario II after 7 fm/c of evolution.
341: We have also studied the rapidity distribution of the neutral to
342: pion ratio in both the scenarios. Throughout the rapidity range,
343: the ratio fluctuate about the isospin symmetric value of 1/3,
344: fluctuations being more in scenario II than in scenario I.
345: However, it was also noted that fluctuations will be considerably
346: less when integrated over time. Rapidity distribution of neutral
347: to total pion ratio may not be able to single out the DCC events.
348:
349: \begin{references}
350: \bibitem[*]{byline}e-mail address:akc@veccal.ernet.in
351: \bibitem{ra93} K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, Nucl.Phys.B404,577,(1993).
352: K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, Nucl.Phys.B399,395,(1993).
353: K. Rajagopal, Nucl.Phys.A566,567c(1994).
354: \bibitem{bj93}J. D. Bjorken, K. L. Kowalski and C. C. Taylor ,
355: SLAC-PUB-6109 (1993), K.L. Kowalski K. L. and Taylor C. C.,
356: CWRUTH-92-6 (1992),hep-ph/9211282.
357: J. D. Bjorken, Acta Phys. Polon. B28,2773 (1997).
358: \bibitem{an91} A. A. Anselm and M. G. Ryskin , Phys. Lett. B
359: {\bf266},482 (1991), A. A. Aneslm, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 217}, 169(1988).
360: \bibitem{la80}C. M. G. Lattes, Y. Fujimoto and S. Hasegawa, Phys.
361: Reports, {\bf 154},247(1980).
362: \bibitem{rand}J. Randrup, Phys. Rev D55,1188 (1997). J.
363: Randrup, Nucl. Phys. A616,531 (1997). J. Randrup and R. L. Thews,
364: Phys. Rev. D56,4392(1997). J. Schaffner-Bielich and Jorgen
365: Randrup, Phys. Rev. C59,3329 (1999). J. Randrup, Heavy ion Phys.
366: 9,289 (1999).
367: \bibitem{gavi} Gavin S., Gocksch A. and Pisarski R. D., Phys.
368: Rev. Lett.{\bf72} 2143, (1994). Gavin S. and Muller B. Phys.
369: Lett.B{\bf329} 486 (1994). S. Gavin, Nucl. Phys. A590,163c,1995
370: \bibitem{asak}M. Asakawa, Z. Huang and X.N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A590,
371: 575c (1995). M. Asakawa, Z. Huang and X.N. Wang, hep-ph/9408299,
372: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74} (1995) 3126. M. Asakawa, H. Minakata
373: and B. Muller, Phys.Rev.D58, 094011(1998). M. Asakawa, H.
374: Minakata and B. Muller, Nucl. Phys. A638,443c (1998).
375: \bibitem{bo96} A. Bochkarev and J. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 54}
376: 4066 (1996).
377: \bibitem{gr97} C. Greiner and B. M\"{u}ller, Phys. rev. D {\bf 55}
378: 1026 (1997).
379: \bibitem{bi97}T. S. Biro and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
380: 79}, 3138(1997).
381: \bibitem{zu00} Z. Zu and C. Greiner, hep-ph/9910562, Phys. Rev.
382: D {\bf 62} 036012 (2000).
383: \bibitem{ri98} D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. C, 2331 (1998)
384: \bibitem{ch99a} A. K. Chaudhuri, nucl-th/9809018, Phys. Rev. D.
385: {\bf 59} 117503 (1999).
386: \bibitem{ch99b} A. K. Chaudhuri, hep-ph/9904269
387: \bibitem{ch99c} A. K. Chaudhuri, hep-ph/9908376
388: \bibitem{ch00} A. K. Chaudhuri, hep-ph/0007332
389: \end{references}
390: \eject
391: \begin{figure}
392: \centerline{\psfig{figure=corr.eps,height=10cm,width=10cm}}
393: \caption{Evolution of the pion correlation fucntion with time,
394: in scenario I and II.}
395: \end{figure}
396:
397: \begin{figure}
398: \centerline{\psfig{figure=field.eps,height=20cm,width=15cm}}
399: \caption{Contour plot of the $\pi_2$ component of the pion field
400: at rapidity Y=0, at initial time $\tau_i$=1 fm/c and after
401: evolution for 7 fm/c.}
402: \end{figure}
403:
404: \begin{figure}
405: \centerline{\psfig{figure=ratio.eps,height=20cm,width=15cm}}
406: \caption{Contour plot of the neutral to total pion ratio, at
407: rapidity Y=0, at initial time $\tau_i$=1 fm/c and after evolution
408: for 7 fm/c.}
409: \end{figure}
410:
411: \begin{figure}
412: \centerline{\psfig{figure=dndy.eps,height=10cm,width=10cm}}
413: %\vspace{-5cm}
414: \caption{Rapidity distribution of neutral to total pion ratio, in
415: scenario I and II. The ratio at different time intervals are
416: shown.}
417: \end{figure}
418: \end{document}
419:
420:
421:
422:
423:
424: \bibitem{bl92} J. P. Blaizot ,A. Krzywicki , Phys. Rev.D{\bf46},
425: 246 (1992).
426: \bibitem{and81} I. V. Andreev, JETP Lett. 33, 367 (1981)
427:
428:
429:
430: \bibitem{ka97} J. I. Kapusta and A. P. Vischer, Z. Phys. C75,507 (1997).
431: \bibitem{cho99}C. Chow and T. D. Cohen, nucl-th/9908013, Phys.
432: Rev. C60,054902 (1999).
433: \bibitem{cs99} L. P. Csernai, P. J. Ellis, S. Jeon and J. I.
434: Kapusta, nucl-th/9908020, Phys. Rev. C61,056901 (2000)
435: \bibitem{kr99} A. Krzywicki, J, Serreau, Phys. Lett. B448,257
436: (1999.)
437: \bibitem{me99}A. Z. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. C60,067902 (1999).
438: \bibitem{cho99}C. Chow and T. D. Cohen, nucl-th/9908013, Phys.
439: Rev. C60,054902 (1999).
440: \bibitem{cs99} L. P. Csernai, P. J. Ellis, S. Jeon and J. I.
441: Kapusta, nucl-th/9908020, Phys. Rev. C61,056901 (2000)
442: \bibitem{landau}L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, in Statistical
443: Physics, 3rd ed.Pergamon Press, 1993.
444: %\vspace{-5cm}
445: %\vspace{-5cm}
446: %\vspace{-5cm}
447:
448: The noise source
449: will continually heat the system while the friction will oppose
450: it. Equilibrium is achieved when the system is thermalised at the
451: temperature dictated by the heat bath.
452: