abstract: One possible interpretation of the holographic principle is the equality of the number of degrees of freedom in a bulk region of space and the number of degrees of freedom on the boundary surface. It is known that such an equality is maintained on equipotential surfaces in any static spacetime in the form of an equipartition law $\Delta N_{\rm bulk}\equiv[\Delta E/ (1/2)k_B T]=  \Delta N_{\rm sur}$. In the cosmological context, the de Sitter universe obeys the same holographic equipartition. I argue that the difference between the surface degrees of freedom and the bulk degrees of freedom in a region of space (which has already emerged) drives the accelerated expansion of the universe through a simple equation $\Delta V = \Delta t (N_{\rm sur} - N_{\rm bulk})$ where $V$ is the Hubble volume in Planck units and $t$ is the cosmic time in Planck units. This equation reproduces the standard evolution of the universe. This approach provides a novel paradigm to study the emergence of space and cosmology, and has far reaching implications.
author: T. Padmanabhan
date: 2024-09-30
title: Emergence and Expansion of Cosmic Space as due to the Quest for Holographic Equipartition

Recent research supports the point of view that gravitational field equations in a wide class of theories should have the same status as the equations of emergent phenomena like fluid mechanics or elasticity. (For a review, see ; for a small sample of work in the same spirit, see .) In my previous work on the emergent paradigm, I have treated *only* the field equations as emergent while assuming the existence of a spacetime manifold, metric, curvature etc. as given structures. The field equations then arise as certain consistency conditions obeyed by the background spacetime.

The question arises as to whether one can think of the "spacetime itself as an emergent structure" from some suitably defined pre-geometric variables. While the phrase in quotes above sounds attractive, it is not of much use unless the idea can be translated into mathematical expressions consistent with what we know about spacetime. There are (at least) two key issues which need to be satisfactorily addressed in this context.

To begin with, it appears conceptually very difficult to think of time as being emergent from some pre-geometric variable and yet provide a natural way of describing the evolution of dynamical variables. Secondly, it seems facetious — if not downright incorrect — to argue that space is emergent around *finite* gravitating systems like the Earth, Sun, Milky Way, etc. Any emergent description of the gravitational fields of such systems must accept space around them as pre-existing, just based on physical evidence. Thus, in the study of *finite* gravitating systems without any special status to a time variable, it is extremely difficult to come up with a conceptually consistent formulation for "spacetime itself as an emergent structure".

Interestingly enough, both these difficulties disappear when we consider cosmology! Observations indicate that there is indeed a special choice of time variable available in our universe, viz., the proper time of the geodesic observers to whom CMBR appears homogeneous and isotropic. So, one has some justification in treating time differently from space in (and possibly only in) the cosmic context. Second, the spatial expansion of the universe can certainly be thought of as emergence of space as the cosmic time progresses. Thus, in the case of cosmology, we have a well defined setting to make concrete the idea that *cosmic space is emergent as cosmic time progresses*.

To understand *why* cosmic space emerges — or, equivalently, to understand why the universe is expanding — we can use a specific version of holographic principle. To motivate this, let us begin by considering a pure de Sitter universe with a Hubble constant $H$. It is known that such a universe obeys the holographic principle in the form $$N_{\rm sur} = N_{\rm bulk}
\label{key1}$$ Here the $N_{\rm sur}$ is the number of degrees of freedom on the spherical surface of Hubble radius $H^{-1}$ given by $$N_{\rm sur} = \frac{4\pi}{L_P^2 H^2}$$ if we attribute one degree of freedom per Planck area. The $N_{\rm bulk} = |E|/[(1/2)k_BT]$ is the effective number of degrees of freedom which are in equipartition at the horizon temperature $T=(H/2\pi)$ if we take $|E|$ to be the Komar energy $|(\rho +3p)| V$ contained inside the Hubble volume $V=(4\pi/3H^3)$. That is, $$N_{\rm bulk}=-\frac{E}{(1/2) k_BT} = - \frac{2(\rho +3p)V}{k_BT}
\label{Nbulk}$$ If we substitute $p=-\rho$, then Eq. () reduces to the standard result $H^2= 8\pi L_P^2 \rho/3$, showing the consistency. The $(\rho +3p)$ is the proper Komar energy density and $V = 4\pi/3H^3$ is the proper volume of the Hubble sphere. The corresponding co-moving expressions will differ by $a^3$ factors in both, which will cancel out.

The condition in Eq. () can also be expressed in the form $|E| = (1/2)N_{\rm sur} k_BT$ which is the standard equipartition law that I have obtained for static spacetimes in GR in 2004 (see, Ref. ) and later generalized to a much wider class of models . It is therefore appropriate to call the condition Eq. () as *holographic equipartition* because it relates the effective degrees of freedom residing in the bulk, determined by the equipartition condition, to the degrees of freedom on the boundary surface.

Our universe, of course, is not exactly de Sitter but there is considerable evidence that it is asymptotically de Sitter. This would suggest that the expansion of the universe — which I consider as conceptually equivalent to the emergence of space — is being driven towards holographic equipartition. Then the basic law governing the emergence of space must relate the emergence of space (in the form of availability of greater and greater volumes of space) to the difference $(N_{\rm sur} - N_{\rm bulk})$. The most natural and simplest form of such a law will be $$\Delta V = \Delta t (N_{\rm sur} - N_{\rm bulk})
\label{key2}$$ where $V$ is the Hubble volume in Planck units and $t$ is the cosmic time in Planck units. More generally, one would have expected $(\Delta V/\Delta t)$ to be some function of $(N_{\rm sur} - N_{\rm bulk})$ which vanishes when the latter does. We could then imagine Eq. () as a Taylor series expansion of this function truncated at the first order.

I will now elevate this relation to the status of a postulate and show that it is equivalent to the standard Friedmann equation. Reintroducing the Planck scale and setting $(\Delta V/\Delta t ) = dV/dt$, this equation becomes $$\frac{dV}{dt} = L_P^2 (N_{\rm sur} - N_{\rm bulk})$$ Substituting $V= (4\pi/3H^3), \ N_{\rm sur} = (4\pi/L_P^2 H^2), \ T=H/2\pi$ and using $N_{\rm bulk}$ in Eq. (), this equation simplifies to the relation: $$\frac{\ddot a}{a}=- \frac{4\pi L_P^2}{3} (\rho + 3p)
\label{frw}$$ which is the standard dynamical equation for the Friedmann model. Using the energy conservation for matter $d(\rho a^3) = -pda^3$ and the de Sitter boundary condition at late times, one gets back the standard accelerating universe scenario.

The definition of $N_{\rm bulk}$ given in Eq. () makes sense only in the accelerating phase of the universe where $(\rho + 3p) <0$ thereby making $N_{\rm bulk}>0$. For normal matter we would not like to have the negative sign in Eq. (). This is easily taken care of by using appropriate signs for the two different cases and writing: $$\frac{dV}{dt} = L_P^2 (N_{\rm sur} -\epsilon N_{\rm bulk});
\label{key3}$$ and redefining $$N_{\rm bulk} = -\epsilon \frac{2(\rho +3p)V}{k_BT}
\label{nep}$$ with $\epsilon = +1$ if $(\rho + 3p )<0$ and $\epsilon = -1$ if $(\rho + 3p ) >0$. (One could have, of course, used the opposite convention for $\epsilon$ and omitted the minus sign in Eq. (); I prefer to maintain the form of Eq. () for the accelerating phase of the universe.) Since only the combination $+\epsilon^2 (\rho+3p)\equiv (\rho+3p)$ occurs in $(dV/dt)$, the derivation of Eq. () remains unaffected and we also maintain $N_{\rm bulk}>0$ in all situations. (See Fig. 1.)

We can gain more insights about Eq. () by separating out the matter component, which causes deceleration, from the dark energy which causes acceleration. Let us assume, for simplicity, that the universe has two components (matter and dark energy) with $(\rho + 3p)>0$ for matter and $(\rho + 3p)<0$ for dark energy. Then, Eq. () can be written in an equivalent form as $$\frac{dV}{dt} = L_P^2 (N_{\rm sur} + N_m - N_{\rm de})
\label{key4}$$ with each of $N_{\rm sur}, N_m, N_{\rm de}$ being positive (as they should be) with $(N_m - N_{\rm de})=(2V/k_BT)(\rho+3p)_{tot}$. We see that if we want $dV/dt \to 0$ asymptotically, we need a component in the universe with $(\rho + 3p )<0$. A universe without a dark energy component has no hope of reaching holographic equipartition. It is also important that the equation of state for the dark energy component is not too different from that of a cosmological constant so that the universe does not go into a super exponential expansion.

Stated in this manner, *the existence of a cosmological constant in the universe is required for asymptotic holographic equipartition.* While these arguments, of course, cannot determine the value of the cosmological constant, the demand of holographic equipartition makes a strong case for its existence. As far as I know, this is more than what any other model has achieved.

Writing the basic equation in the form of Eq. (), suggests that there must be an intimate relationship between the matter degrees of freedom and dark energy degrees of freedom. In any fundamental theory of quantum gravity, we expect matter and gravitational degrees of freedom to emerge together and hence such a relationship is expected. Discovering this relationship will be a primary challenge for any pre-geometric model since it might even allow us to determine the value of the cosmological constant.

The most obvious and important extension of this work will be to study the growth of perturbations in the universe using a perturbed version of Eq. (). To do this formally in a gauge invariant manner, one will need to express the full gravitational field equation as an evolution equation towards holographic equipartition. (I hope to discuss this in detail in a future publication.) But it is fairly straightforward to work out perturbation theory in a specific gauge even without the full formalism. Given the fact that Eq. () is identical to Eq. (), we do not expect any surprises in the perturbation theory except for the following feature.

These ideas suggest that we should think of the universe at any given time as being endowed with temperature $T= H/2\pi$ as far as the emergence of space is concerned. This is the temperature related to the degrees of freedom which have already become emergent in the cosmos (from the pre-geometric variables) and should not be confused with the normal kinetic temperature of matter. But since the mathematics is identical, we will expect thermal fluctuations at the temperature $T=H/2\pi$ to be imprinted on any sub-system which has achieved equipartition. This effect will lead to some corrections to the cosmological perturbation theory in the late universe when we do a thermal averaging in a canonical ensemble. This is somewhat similar in spirit to the thermal fluctuations at the de Sitter temperature leaving their imprint on the density fluctuations which were generated during inflation.

To avoid possible misunderstanding, I stress that this is *in addition to (and not instead of)* any imprint of the current Hubble constant $H_0$ on the sub-horizon cosmic structures due to standard structure formation processes. There are straightforward dynamical effects in various aspects of structure formation (like formation of dark matter halos, cooling of gas, formation of galaxies with flat rotation curves arising due to interplay of baryonic and DM components, etc.) all of which depend on the background expansion and thus, on $H_0$. For example, the standard cosmic structure formation scenario does suggest that (see e.g., ) a preferred acceleration scale $a_0 =  c H_0$ is imprinted on galactic scale structures. (This is sometimes presented as evidence for MOND, etc. which I believe is unfounded.) One can take any standard result in structure formation which depends on $H_0$, and rewrite it in terms of the horizon temperature using $H=2\pi T$, and try to present it in an emergent/thermodynamic language. This is unnecessary and does not add to our insight. It is therefore important to distinguish between (a) rewriting standard results in terms of the horizon temperature, and (b) deriving genuine effects which arise due to the emergence of cosmic space and the evolution of degrees of freedom towards holographic equipartition. I hope to return to this issue in a future publication.

There are three more comments I want to make regarding Eq. (). First, the simplicity of Eq. () is quite striking and it is remarkable that the standard Friedmann equation can be reinterpreted in this form as an evolution towards holographic equipartition. *If the underlying ideas are not correct, it is very difficult to understand why Eq. () holds in our universe.* For example, consider the definition of horizon temperature in a non-de Sitter universe. In obtaining $N_{\rm bulk}$ we have assumed that the relevant temperature is given by $T= H/2\pi$. Defining a horizon temperature when $H$ is time-dependent is not easy and there is some amount of controversy in the literature regarding the correct choice. It is possible to obtain equations similar to Eq. () with other definitions (all of which agree in the de Sitter limit) but none of them seems to have the compelling naturalness which Eq. () possesses. The same is true as regards the volume element $V$ which I took as the Hubble volume; other choices are possible but then the resulting equation has no simple interpretation.

Second, this equation presents the emergence of cosmic space as an evolution towards holographic equipartition in a "bit-by-bit" increase in Planck units. When the cosmic time changes by one Planck unit, the amount of extra cosmic space which becomes available changes by $(N_{\rm sur} - \epsilon N_{\rm bulk})$. This is reminiscent of ideas in which one considers cosmic expansion as a computational process. Presented in Planck units, Eq. () has no adjustable parameters and opens the possibility for interpretation in combinatorial terms when we understand the pre-geometric variables better.

Third, we expect that when the relevant degrees of freedom like $N_{\rm sur}$ are of the order of unity, Eq. () must break down. Studying possible modifications of this equation when the degrees of freedom are few will help us to study the evolution of the universe close to the big bang in a quantum cosmological setting — but without the usual complications related to the time coordinate. In other words, postulating well motivated corrections to the "bit dynamics" expressed by Eq. () may be a better way of tackling the singularity problem, rather than by quantizing gravity in the usual manner.

To conclude, let me summarize how these ideas fit in a broader context.

The degrees of freedom are the basic entities in physics and the holographic principle suggests a deep relationship between the number of degrees of freedom residing in a bulk region of space and the number of degrees of freedom on the boundary of this region. Given a fundamental area scale, $L_P^2$, it makes sense to count the surface degrees of freedom as $A/L_P^2$ where $A$ is the area of the surface. The non-trivial task is to come up with a suitable measure for the bulk degrees of freedom which must depend on the matter residing in the bulk. (This necessary dependence on the matter variables precludes counting the bulk degrees of freedom as $V/L_P^3$.) It is here that the idea of equipartition comes to our aid. If the surface is endowed with a horizon temperature $T$, then we can think of $E/(1/2)k_BT$ as the number of *effective* bulk degrees of freedom. The logic behind this identification is as follows. We assume that the bulk region is like the inside of a microwave oven with the temperature set to the surface value, as far as the degrees of freedom which have *already emerged* (along with the space) are concerned. Then, if *these* degrees of freedom account for an energy $E$, it follows that $E/(1/2)k_BT$ is indeed the correct count for effective $N_{\rm bulk}$. This temperature $T$ and $N_{\rm bulk}$ should not be confused with the normal kinetic temperature of matter residing in the bulk and the standard degrees of freedom we associate with matter. It is more appropriate to think of these degrees of freedom as those which have already emerged, along with space, from some pre-geometric variables. I postulate that the emergence of cosmic space is driven by the holographic discrepancy $(N_{\rm sur}  + N_m - N_{\rm de})$ between the surface and bulk degrees of freedom where $N_m$ is contributed by normal matter with $(\rho + 3p)>0$ and $N_{\rm de}$ is contributed by the cosmological constant with all the degrees of freedom being counted positive. It is obvious that in the absence of $N_{\rm de}$, this expression can never be zero and holographic equipartition cannot be achieved. In the presence of the cosmological constant, the emergence of space will soon lead to $N_{\rm de}$ dominating over $N_m$ with the universe commencing accelerated expansion. Asymptotically, $N_{\rm de}$ will approach $N_{\rm sur}$ and the rate of emergence of space, $dV/dt$, will tend to zero in a de Sitter universe. The cosmos would have found its peace.

The expansion which we witness (which is equivalent to emergence of space) is an evolution towards equilibrium of a system which is right now away from equilibrium. Such an evolution makes perfect thermodynamic sense. Needless to say, this approach provides a completely different paradigm to study cosmology.


abstract: Rare isotopes are most often studied through nuclear reactions. Nuclear reactions can be used to obtain detailed structure information but also in connection to astrophysics to determine specific capture rates. In order to extract the desired information it is crucial to have a reliable framework that describes the reaction process accurately. A few recent developments for transfer and breakup reactions will be presented. These include recent studies on the reliability of existing theories as well as effort to reduce the ambiguities in the predicted observables.
address: $^1$National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA; $^2$Helmholtz-Insitut Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, D-55128 Mainz, Germany; $^3$Department of Chemistry, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, USA; $^4$Centro de Fı́sica Nuclear da Universidade de Lisboa, P-1649-003 Lisboa, Portugal; $^5$Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, USA; $^6$Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 60439, USA; $^7$Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, United Kingdom
author: F. M. Nunes$^1$, P. Capel$^2$, R.J. Charity$^3$, A. Deltuva$^4$, W.Dickhoff$^5$, H. Esbensen$^6$,
R.C. Johnson$^7$, N.B. Nguyen$^1$, N.J. Upadhyay$^1$ and S.J. Waldecker$^5$
title: Are present reaction theories for studying rare isotopes good enough?

# Introduction

The study of rare isotopes has challenged many of our traditional concepts in nuclear physics. New phenomena have been unveiled and, alongside, new approaches have been developed. An example is the loosely bound nature of many of these exotic nuclei which stimulated the development of new theoretical frameworks that can handle open systems at the same level as closed systems. In order to assess the progress in our understanding of nuclei away from stability, many experiments continue to be performed at the edge of technical capabilities. Most often these experiments involve reactions of the species of interest with a stable target. Through reactions, one can probe shell structure, correlations, pairing, the role of the continuum, etc . One can also extract radiative capture rates relevant for astrophysics . Ultimately, to obtain a meaningful conclusion from the comparison with the data, a reliable reaction model is needed.

In a fully microscopic framework, reaction and structure emerge from the same framework. The efforts on ab-initio reactions have increased significantly over the last decade and resulted in very important progress (e.g. ). Present implementations do not include the three-body nucleon force, nor are they able to include three-body dynamics. These are crucial advances that will increase predictability. However, ab-initio formulations are limited to light nuclear reactions. For all other cases of interest, the many-body problem needs to be simplified such that the important dynamics in the reaction process can be properly accounted for.

Most reaction theories thus rely on the reduction of the many-body problem to a few-body problem, in which the relevant degrees of freedom have been preserved. In doing this reduction, one introduces ambiguities, since the effective interactions between the reduced clusters are not uniquely determined. Also, in solving the few-body problem, a number of different approximations are applied. The ambiguities introduced in the reduction of the many-body problem need to be kept under control and uncertainties in the treatment in the dynamics need to be quantified in a systematic way. Here we discuss a variety of recent efforts to quantify the errors or reduce ambiguities in present treatments.

In Section 2, we focus on transfer reactions, particularly (d,p). Now that the exact full three-body Faddeev solution for the scattering problem has become feasible, several benchmarks of existing theories have been recently carried out (see Section 2.1). The use of more microscopically informed effective interactions in the description of transfer reactions has also proven to be beneficial. The example discussed here is the use of the dispersive optical models to determine all inputs to (d,p) reactions on double magic nuclei .

In Section 3. we turn to breakup reaction models. First, we discuss the benchmark of two existing non-perturbative theories for dealing with breakup on nuclear targets, which includes reactions dominated by the Coulomb interaction . Even if the reaction dynamics is accurately described, the breakup cross section depends strongly on the core-target interaction. In Section 3.2, we discuss a new method proposed to reduce the uncertainties introduced exactly by the core-target interaction when extracting structure information from breakup .

# Transfer reactions

Transfer (d,p)/(p,d) reactions are the most common tool to study single particle structure. Generally, from the transfer angular distributions one obtains the angular momentum of the state while the normalization at forward angles provides the spectroscopic factor .

## Testing models

It has long been understood that in (d,p) reactions, deuteron breakup can play an important role . The adiabatic approach was originally developed within the zero range approximation. However, recently, a systematic study using the finite range adiabatic model concluded that finite range effects should be properly taken into account, not only in the calculation of the transfer matrix elements but also in treating the deuteron breakup . In this model, the three-body wavefunction, describing $d+A$ scattering, is expanded in Weinberg states and truncated to first order .

The continuum discretized coupled channel method (CDCC) provides a more accurate approach of treating breakup, in that it does not make the aforementioned truncation. In CDCC the elastic and breakup channels are fully coupled. To compute the transfer channel, one replaces in the transfer T-matrix, the exact three-body wavefunction by the CDCC wavefunction. Until recently, the error in that approximation has not been quantified.

The most accurate way of solving the three-body problem in the presence of rearrangement channels is by using an overcomplete basis written in all three Jacobi components. This gives way to the Faddeev equations which in the few-nucleon field has traditionally been solved as integral equations in momentum space. Critical for the extension of those techniques into nuclear reactions with heavier systems was the progress in the treatment of the Coulomb .

Starting from the same Hamiltonian we have performed a systematic comparison of ADWA and Faddeev . This study includes a range of target masses from $A=10$ to $A=48$, as well as a range of energies $E \approx 5-40$ A MeV. Results show that around $E=10$ A MeV there is good agreement between the two approaches. However the agreement deteriorates at higher energies, where ambiguities in the interactions play a significant role. A similar study for CDCC versus Faddeev was performed and qualitatively, the same conclusions were drawn. In Fig. we show one example studied, the $^{10}$Be(d,p)$^{11}$Be reaction at 21.4 MeV. Here all three methods ADWA, CDCC and Faddeev predict cross sections within a few percent from each other. Also shown is the importance of Coulomb in determining the theoretical normalization of angular distribution at forward angles accurately. Because the treatment of Coulomb is an important limiting factor in extending Faddeev calculations to heavy nuclei, it is useful to understand whether its contribution is significant. Fig. illustrates that not including Coulomb, even for such a light system, introduces an error of $15$%. Finally, Fig. also shows the results obtained when no breakup is considered, and the transfer process takes place in 1-step. The large difference between CDCC and CDCC(1-step) confirm the need to include breakup in this process.

## Reducing ambiguities

Important ingredients in predicting the angular distributions following a A(d,p)B reaction are the optical potentials n-A and p-A. These are usually taken from global parameterizations to elastic scattering data (e.g. ). In addition one also needs a description of the final bound state of interest. For this purpose, we often adjust a real Woods-Saxon potential with standard parameters to reproduce the separation energy and other basic properties of the nucleus B.

The dispersive optical model (DOM) is based on the microscopic Green's function approach which connects the scattering states and the bound states through dispersive relations. The immediate advantage is that the data driven extrapolations are guided by microscopic theory. Recent studies using DOM on the Ca isotopes show unusual features in the isospin dependence of the nucleon interaction . This becomes particularly relevant when extrapolating to unknown regions of the nuclear chart.

DOM optical potentials were applied to (d,p) reactions on several doubly magic nuclei . Therein, transfer calculations were performed within the finite range ADWA. Results show that in most cases, DOM is able to describe the angular distributions as well as the global Chapel Hill parameterization , which is commonly used. However the normalization of the cross sections obtained with DOM are reduced and become more in line with results from (e,e'p) measurements, mostly due to the non-locality included in the bound state wavefunction.

Another important result has to do with the beam energy dependence in the extracted spectroscopic factors . For $^{49}$Ca, while using the standard approach produces a wide range of spectroscopic factors depending on the beam energy, within DOM, the range of extracted values are much less dependent on the beam energy.

Probably the most interesting result in Nguyen *et al.* concerns the exotic $^{133}$Sn. In Fig. we show the square of the single neutron bound state for $^{133}$Sn in the ground state $| \varphi_n|^2$ as a function of the n-$^{132}$Sn distance (r), calculated within the standard Woods-Saxon approach and the DOM. Non-locality shifts strength from the inner part of the bound state to the surface. For peripheral reactions, this results in larger cross sections and smaller extracted spectroscopic factors. In Fig. we show the angular distribution for $^{132}$Sn(d,p)$^{133}$Sn at 9.5 MeV. We plot the predictions and data from as well as those using DOM input. Results indicate that for this system DOM provides an improvement in the description of the angular distribution as compared to Chapel-Hill. This is understood in terms of a more reliable extrapolation to neutron rich systems.

# Breakup reactions

Breakup reactions are a useful tool to study nuclear structure properties but also provide an indirect method for direct capture of astrophysical relevance. The relative energy distribution is strongly dependent on the binding energy and the angular momentum, but also to the asymptotic normalization of the overlap function of the initial ground state. It also enables the study of the resonances of the nucleus of interest. Here we focus on two-body breakup, corresponding to reactions of the type $P+T \rightarrow c+x+T$.

## Testing models

As pointed our in Section 2., an exact approach for solving the three-body $c+x+T$ involves solving the Faddeev Equations. However, because most of the breakup experiments are performed on nuclear targets with charge $Z>1$, present implementations of the Faddeev equations in nuclear reactions are not feasible.

The best available method for solving the problem is CDCC . However CDCC is computationally intensive and generalizations of CDCC to include more complex projectile structure are often hindered by computational limitations. It is therefore very desirable to have an alternative method that is equally accurate.

The dynamic eikonal method (DEA) which is based on the eikonal approximation, has been developed with the intent of providing a computationally feasible alternative. DEA is non-perturbative, fully quantal and can equally handle nuclear and Coulomb breakup processes. Capel *et al.* compared DEA and CDCC. In Figs. and we show the energy distribution for the breakup of $^{15}$C on Pb at 20 AMeV and 68 A MeV. While DEA performs well at the higher energy, it produces too large a cross section for the lower energy. The separate contributions of the various n-$^{14}$C partial waves are included in Figs. and . Focusing on the 20 AMeV case, we see that DEA produces a similar energy distribution for the breakup into p-waves compared to CDCC. However, it predicts a larger contribution for the even partial waves than CDCC, which results in a larger total cross section. This discrepancy of DEA and CDCC at lower energy is due to the fact that DEA does not account for the strong Coulomb deflection properly .

The time dependent approach (TD) is a non-perturbative semiclassical approach, also benchmarked against CDCC . This method is applicable when the breakup process is Coulomb dominated. Contrary to DEA, TD does account for the Coulomb deflection since it assumes the projectile follows Coulomb trajectories. It is found that TD provides a reliable prediction of the angle integrated cross sections for both energies 20-70 A MeV. However, due to its semiclassical nature, TD cannot provide detailed angular distributions.

## Reducing ambiguities

Regardless of the important theoretical developments in the description of breakup of loosely bound exotic system, one large source of uncertainty remains, namely the core-target interaction. The ratio method , inspired by an earlier work on elastic scattering , was developed with the aim of getting rid of this uncertainty. Its present form focuses on the breakup of one-neutron halo nuclei: $P+T \rightarrow c+n+T$. It was realized that the diffraction pattern in elastic and breakup angular distributions are very similar. The original idea of Capel *et al.* was to take the ratio of the breakup cross section and the elastic cross section to obtain a new observable that depends only on the structure of the loosely bound projectile. For practical reasons, it was concluded that instead of using only the elastic, it was best to use a summed cross section: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma_{\rm sum}}{d\Omega}=\frac{d\sigma_{\rm el}}{d\Omega} +\frac{d\sigma_{\rm inel}}{d\Omega}
+\int \frac{d\sigma_{\rm bu}}{dEd\Omega} dE.
\label {e6}
\end{aligned}$$ Then the ratio $\frac{d\sigma_{\rm bu}/dEd\Omega}{d\sigma_{\rm sum}/d\Omega}$ provides directly a projectile form factor, independent of the reaction details: $$\begin{aligned}
|F_{E,0}|^2=\sum_{ljm}\left|\int\phi_{ljm}(E,\mbox{\boldmath $r$}) \phi_0(\mbox{\boldmath $r$}) e^{i\mbox{\boldmath $Q\cdot r$}}d\mbox{\boldmath $r$}\right|^2.
\label {e4}
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\phi_{ljm}(E)$ is the projectile's scattering wave function corresponding to $c$-$n$ energy $E$ in partial wave $ljm$ and $\phi_0$ is the projectile's ground state wave function. The quantum numbers $l$, $j$, and $m$ are, respectively, the $c$-$n$ orbital angular momentum, the total angular momentum resulting from the coupling of $l$ with the neutron spin, and the projection of $j$.

In Fig. we show the strong sensitivity of the form factor to the projectile's neutron separation energy. The thick black lines are the results calculated directly from Eq. while the thin colored lines correspond to the results obtained from the ratio of the cross sections computed within DEA. The calculated cross sections correspond to the breakup of $^{11}$Be on $^{12}$C at 68 A MeV, although results on $^{208}$Pb are very similar. As discussed , this new observable can also be used to extract the angular momentum of the ground state as well as more detailed properties of the projectile's ground state.

# Outlook

In this presentation we cover a number of recent developments pertaining nuclear reactions with rare isotopes. We focus on transfer reactions and breakup. Present non-perturbative methods for calculating (d,p) cross sections have been benchmarked and results show that around 10 A MeV, ADWA and CDCC are in agreement with the exact Faddeev calculations. Also discussed is the use of DOM as input to transfer calculations, which bring uniformity to the spectroscopic factors extracted from (d,p) data at different beam energies.

The comparison with exact Faddeev has also shown the limitation of ADWA and CDCC at higher beam energies. In order to be able to address reactions with heavy nuclei in the future, it is important that new methods be formulated which can indeed handle the larger Coulomb field and provide the necessary accuracy.

We also include a discussion on the description of breakup reactions of loosely bound nuclei. In this context the DEA and TD methods have been benchmarked against CDCC and results reveal the level of accuracy to be expected from these methods in predicting the energy and angular distributions at various beam energies. To reduce the uncertainty of the calculated breakup cross section from the ambiguities in the optical potential between the core and the target (by far the largest uncertainty in most cases of interest), the ratio method has been developed. Here we briefly discuss the main idea behind this method and the type of properties that the new ratio observable can reveal.

In all examples discussed in this presentation, it was assumed that the nucleus under study was pure single particle. Clearly extensions are needed to be able to handle two-particle states and one-particle mixed configuration. Although there have been developments in that direction , these are hindered by computational limitations. It would be advantageous to the field that simpler reaction models, that have been proven accurate in important regimes, be extended to include more complex projectile structure.

Support from the National Science Foundation grant PHY-0555893 and PHY-096894 and from the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Nuclear Physics under grants DE-FG52-08NA28552 and FG02-87ER-40316 and the TORUS collaboration DE-SC0004087 are acknowledged.


abstract: We address the question of the title from the scientific, economic, and cultural points of view, and argue strongly for a positive answer. We respond to various issues that have been raised.
author: Stephen Hawking[^1]; Gordon Kane
title: Should China build the Great Collider?

Throughout the history of human civilization, and especially for the past four centuries, understanding our physical universe has been a goal of many people. It is the focus of physics. By the end of the 20th century, we had arrived at a successful, but incomplete, description of our world: the Standard Models of particle physics and of cosmology. This description is valid to the highest energies and to the edges of the universe. It achieves the traditional goals of physics.

These Standard Models are descriptions, and we do not yet know why they are correct. In addition, the Standard Models do not include gravity, particularly a quantum theory of gravity. And they do not include an explanation of the dark matter of the universe, or why there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter at the big bang but today the amount of antimatter in the universe is only one billionth of the amount of matter, and much more.

The boundaries of physics have changed over the past few decades. Physicists have become more ambitious. Beginning in the 1970s, efforts were made to unify the forces into one underlying force rather than the several we apparently observe. Around the same time, the idea of supersymmetry was found to be a powerful ingredient in our potential understanding of such unification. That was reinforced in the 1980s with the discoveries of inflation and string theory. Back in the 1920s Ernest Rutherford said "Don't let me catch anyone talking about the universe in my department ". Today it is different, as Steven Weinberg put it, "Scientists of the past were not just like scientists of today who didn't know as much as we do. They had completely different ideas of what there was to know or how you go about learning it ".

Progress in physics can come from new concepts or new tools, such as new particle colliders or new detectors. Without the CERN Laboratory Large Hadron Collider (LHC) we would not know about the existence of the Higgs boson, which changes and sharpens in fundamental ways our understanding of the universe. For many people it is a source of awe and comfort to see that humans can understand our universe.

A historical guide as to how not to proceed comes from the U.S. cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in 1993. That has led to the U.S. no longer being the world leader in basic particle physics, and created an opening for China to move toward that position. It is well documented that the SSC failed for several complicated reasons, political and accidental ones, mismanagement, demanding international participation, and more, with cost overruns not being a dominant one.

The discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN in 2012 was a wonderful and major step forward in understanding the universe. It taught us that the Standard Model of particle physics along with broken symmetries that allow mass lead to a successful description of our world. The role of the Higgs interaction is remarkable - if electrons could not get mass via interacting with the Higgs field then atoms would be the size of the universe and our world could not exist. Further, when electrons do get mass via the interaction with the Higgs field, quantum corrections make them so massive they turn into black holes unless some new physics yet to be discovered allows them to be stabilized at their actual mass. The proposed collider will search for clues to that new physics.

The proposed Chinese collider would have two phases. The first would be a Circular Electron Positron Collider (CEPC), and the second a Super Proton Proton Collider (SPPC). Both would be in a long tunnel, hopefully about 100 km around. The first phase would focus on learning what the Higgs physics is telling us about a deeper underlying theory. For example, the LHC data on Higgs boson (h) decays suggests that the observed Higgs is like a Standard Model Higgs, even though we know from quantum corrections that the Higgs cannot actually be a Standard Model one. The several Higgs boson decay branching ratios are all consistent with being equal to the Standard Model predictions, even though they could have been very different. But the LHC data still actually allows quite different outcomes. The most important decay is $h\to Z+Z$, where Z's are the bosons that mediate the weak neutral interactions. The ratio of its LHC value to the prediction is about $1.3\pm 0.3$. The LHC can only improve that uncertainty a little with further running, while CEPC could provide an order of magnitude better precision, and really tell us if the Higgs boson was Standard Model-like or not. The situation is similar for several other decays. Also, our present best understanding of the Higgs boson implies that it should be accompanied by partners. Finding them will require a higher energy new collider, and searching for them would be a major goal of a future collider. Better data about Higgs boson properties that could come from a new collider could lead to truly deeper understanding of the remarkable role of Higgs physics.

There is an International Linear Collider program in Japan (ILC) whose goals overlap those of CEPC. There are also studies at CERN about future colliders. One, CLIC, is a linear electron-positron collider whose goals would overlap CEPC. In the past there have often been accelerators or colliders in different countries or regions with overlapping goals. Scientifically that can be valuable, and it is surely valuable for all the countries or regions that construct them, as we discuss below.

One great advantage of CEPC over other proposals, such as the ILC and CLIC, is that it can have a second phase, called SPPC, to collide protons at higher energies. The CEPC tunnel will be available for SPPC, for free. There are strong motivations for extending the total energy to at least two or three times the LHC energy, and perhaps ultimately about six or seven times the LHC energy could be feasible. That would require development of higher field superconducting magnets. With proton-proton collisions one can plan for the high luminosity needed to observe signals, and for a research program lasting decades. One major result to aim for at a higher energy collider is the data needed to understand how the Higgs boson itself gets its mass. The second main goal is to search at significantly higher energies to see what might be discovered.

While no one can be sure what might be discovered eventually at CEPC or SPPC beyond the guaranteed Higgs physics, one interesting possibility is the fundamental symmetry called supersymmetry. It might lead to observable part- ners of the Standard Model particles, just as the charge conjugation symmetry led to an antiparticle for every particle. If so, we know their properties are such that they might be observable at the higher energy SPPC.

Some people have said that the absence of superpartners or other phenomena at LHC so far makes discovery of superpartners unlikely. But history suggests otherwise. Once the b quark was found, in 1979, people argued that "naturally" the top quark would only be a few times heavier. In fact the top quark did exist, but was forty-one times heavier than the b quark, and was only found nearly twenty years later. If superpartners were forty-one times heavier than Z bosons they would be too heavy to detect at LHC and its upgrades, but could be detected at SPPC. In addition, a supersymmetric theory has the remarkable property that it can relate physics at our scale, where colliders take data, with the Planck scale, the natural scale for a fundamental physics theory, which may help in the efforts to find a deeper underlying theory. CERN is also studying building a higher energy proton-proton collider (FCC), with total energy even- tually about six times that of LHC, perhaps initially only two-three times LHC. Most likely only one very high energy extension will be built since it will be fairly costly.

It would be of tremendous benefit to China to build CEPC and its future upgrades. An essential point to grasp is that when one is at the frontier of knowledge and understanding, progress requires new techniques and develop- ments and insights. Otherwise discoveries would have already been made. Existing techniques and facilities cannot go further. This has shown up in the past from the LHC in a number of well documented areas, including inventing the World Wide Web with its huge impact on economies world-wide and then grid computing. Someone said imagine that CERN (where the World Wide Web was invented for particle physics) had one penny for each use, then particle physics would have all the funding it could use. More industries include magnet technology and superconducting wire technology, a multi-billion dollar accelerator industry, a multi-billion dollar imaging industry that owes its existence to the development of particle physics detectors, other billion dollar industries, and many tangible benefits. Such technologies generate revenues far exceeding the investment for collider construction.

Arguably the third industrial revolution was triggered by the invention of the World Wide Web at CERN. The requirements for data acquisition and storage and access, and the materials and technologies needed for CEPC and SPPC could help lead to the fourth industrial revolution. For the first decades of the third industrial revolution High Energy Physics led, and only in recent years industry has overtaken HEP. History may repeat itself for the fourth.

About half of all PhD's earned at CERN go to people who move into indus- tries and areas outside of particle physics, and enrich those areas. That would happen with CEPC too. A major effect comes because innovations can lead to start-up companies, but start-ups can be risky. With LHC to provide an initial market for the products of the start-ups, they have been far more likely to suc- ceed. That would be true for a Chinese collider too. New technologies emerge because particle physics necessarily is at the frontiers, and new approaches and techniques are needed to interrogate nature more deeply. China can accelerate the expansion of its economy by investing in a major collider.

Possibly the largest benefit would be attracting a large number of bright young Chinese to science and its goals. Those young people would get excited about many areas of science along the way, and decide to work in those areas, greatly strengthening the entire scientific enterprise in China. The Chinese educational system could handle the challenge of educating many more scientists and benefit greatly from it.

CEPC may make fundamental new discoveries. Even so, a proton-proton collider will be needed to discover more or explore properties of new particles, via a long circular ring with thousands of high field magnets. Again history provides a guide. The bosons (W and Z and gluons) that mediate the forces of the Standard Model were discovered at lower energy facilities. Then CERN built and ran the LEP electron-positron collider for two decades, studying the Standard Model and alternatives, and establishing the Standard Model. Then using the same tunnel, LHC colliding protons at higher energies was built, and discovered the Higgs boson.

Could there be any alternatives to a higher energy facility to discover or exclude new particles? People have invented clever methods to accelerate pro- tons and/or electrons to higher energies, but unfortunately all approaches have led to luminosities far too small to discover new physics. At best they lead to a few events per decade, rather than the tens or hundreds of events a year needed. Seeing the Higgs boson signal at LHC above backgrounds that could fake it took over 200,000 events per detector. In the SSC era of the 1980s opponents of the SSC claimed that new magnet technologies would emerge that would replace the well-established superconducting magnets, but four decades later such new magnet technologies have still not arrived, and are unlikely to exist. A description of the scientific and cultural case for such a collider has been presented in "From the Great Wall to the Great Collider: China and the Quest to Uncover the Inner Workings of the Universe", by Steve Nadis and Shing-Tung Yau, published by the International Press of Boston in 2015.

China has several medium size scientific projects, such as the China Spallation Neutron Source that has just successfully turned on, operated by the Institute of High Energy Physics and the Institute of Physics, one of four such facilities in the world. CERN is unique in high energy physics, the world leader, and a world center for high energy physics with thousands of physicists from around the world working at CERN, and large numbers of visitors converging on CERN to see the laboratory and the detectors. If China built CEPC and then SPPC as a large science project it could become the international center of high energy physics, supplanting the role of CERN. CERN is also studying building such colliders, but only after a decade or more of upgrading and running the Large Hadron Collider.

The Chinese have so far taken a wise approach to financing a number of large science facilities, but mostly not at the leading position in the world, in terms of science, technology, investment scale, and cultural impact. It is important for China move ahead to take the leading role, at least in a few selected areas. The CEPC is a good choice for its scientific importance and technology impact, drawing on thirty years' experience with the BEPC. Nearly all the costs will be spent in China. Once China is proceeding, other countries will join in, stimulating great international collaboration centered around grand human ambitions, in a spirit of a peace and harmony.

Today collider construction is a mature technology. Cost and time estimates will be examined by experts, and are likely to be basically accurate. China's GDP per capita is not yet as high as that of wealthy nations. But that should not be a reason to back away from the collider. On the contrary, the collider will provide work and stimulate economic benefits for many more people. China's total GDP is now among the largest in the world, and can afford a future collider. It has been pointed out by Yifang Wang that the cost of CEPC (and even SPPC) as a fraction of GDP would not exceed that of the existing and scientifically very successful low energy Chinese collider, the Beijing Electron Positron Collider (BEPC) when it was built. Such investments stimulate the technological advances that raise developing nations to economic leaders. It is important for China to continue to show wisdom about supporting scientific research. Funds for a collider should not compete with nor adversely affect other science funding. Each area should have its funding at a level that is healthy for its development.

The Chinese particle physics community has matured. It mastered the low energy collider technology with the Beijing collider, BEPC. Many Chinese physicists have worked at collider laboratories such as CERN and Fermilab. If frontier activities are underway in China, foreign physicists will come to where the action is, and help make any effort maximally successful. When discoveries come, recognition is broadly spread. There is some tradition in particle physics for group leaders and for those whose efforts made the collider possible, to get Nobel Prizes. For the CERN collider the accelerator physicist Simon van der Meer and Carlo Rubbia were recipients, and for the earlier discovery of the charmed quark it was Samuel Ting and Burton Richter. We can expect Chinese Nobel Prizes.

Could new theoretical concepts or tools emerge that would move science forward without new collider facilities? Of course new ideas might lead to new insights. But no matter how elegant a theory might be, without data we will not know if it really describes or explains aspects of nature. Without the discovery of the Higgs boson, there would still be many doubters about the existence of the Higgs field describing our vacuum state. Results from astrophysics and cosmology and the cosmic microwave background provide information about important questions, but no amount of results from these areas could have told us about the top quark existence or mass, or about the Higgs physics, or the unification of forces and more. Data will be crucial to select theories about major issues such as what is the dark matter, or can we unify and simplify the theory of the forces and relate the forces to the Higgs mechanism that allows mass, or what causes the rapid inflation at the beginning of our universe, and more.

It is remarkable that human cultures could reach the level that provided data and ideas that have allowed us to take our understanding of our physical universe to the beginnings of time and to the edges of the universe. China could take us to the next deeper level via knowledge obtained from future collider data. The country that makes the greatest advances in discovering the workings of nature itself, via the sciences of particle physics and cosmology, will be permanently remembered in history for glorious achievements.

# Note

This article, both its original English version and its Chinese translated version, has been distributed widely in Chinese media before the death of S.H.. The English and Chinese versions can be found by the following links:

http://intlpress.sinaapp.com/blog/essay.php?id=16

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/87Y89AHg4na4Ai6QQrCNbw

# Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Nima Arkani-Hamed, Malcolm Perry, Jianming Qian, Shing-Tung Yau, and Yue Zhao for helpful interactions. The research of S.H. was supported by the Avery Foundation, and the research of G.K. was supported in part by Department of Energy grant de-sc0007859.

[^1]: This memo was completed and distributed in China in early 2018, while Hawking was still active prior to his recent death.