\section{Introduction}
Calculations of neutrino -- nucleon reaction rates in a hot ($T \alt 50$MeV) and
dense ($10^{13}\mbox{g/cm$^{3}$} \alt \rho _{b}
\alt 10^{15}\mbox{g/cm$^{3}$}$) core of a collapse-driven supernova
are complicated problems (see, e.g., \cite{ts75,br85,re98a} for
the standard rates). When the density reaches
$\rho _{b} \sim 10^{13}$g/cm$^{3}$, the average separation of
nucleons $d \sim 6 \times 10^{-13} \mbox{cm} \ (
\rho_{b} \, / \, 10^{13} \mbox{g/cm$^{3}$}) ^{-1/3}
$ becomes of the same order as the typical neutrino compton
wave length $\lambda _{\nu} \sim 6 \times 10^{-13}  \mbox{cm}
\ (E_{\nu} \, / \, 30\mbox{MeV} )^{-1}$. This means that neutrinos are
interacting simultaneously with multiple nucleons for this density or
higher. If nucleons are distributed uniformly in space and
time, which is unlikely, the outgoing waves from multiple targets
interfere with one another and the cross
sections remain the product of the number of targets and the
cross section of a single scattering. However, in reality, the
distributions of nucleons are fluctuating due to mutual interactions and
the reaction rates will be modified from those obtained with this simple formula.
Furthermore, the typical energy $E_{\nu} \sim 30 \mbox{MeV}\
(T/10 \mbox{MeV})$  of a neutrino, which is approximately an inverse
of the duration time of interaction between a neutrino and a nucleon,
is of the same order as the nucleon -- nucleon scattering rate $\Gamma
\sim \langle \sigma v \rangle n_{b} \sim 30 $MeV for the density
$\rho_{b} \sim 3 \times 10^{13}$g/cm$^{3}$ and temperature $T \sim
10$MeV, where $\sigma$, $v$ and $n_{b}$ are the scattering cross
section, the nucleon velocity and the nucleon number
density. This implies that while a neutrino is interacting with a nucleon,
the target nucleon is scattered off by another nucleon. Hence both the
spatial and temporal correlations of nucleons are important.

It is, however, very difficult to calculate these correlations of
nucleons accurately, since they are induced by the strong nuclear
interactions and cannot be treated with a simple perturbation. This
issue was studied by several authors from early on. Sawyer \cite{sa89}, for
example, calculated the density and spin-density fluctuations of nuclear matter
in the static and long wave length limit from an equation of state, while Iwamoto
\& Pethick \cite{iw82} investigated them from the Fermi liquid theory. These
results have not been incorporated extensively in simulations of supernovae or
proto neutron stars (see, however, \cite{bl86}) and the simpler
formula mentioned above of the reaction rates
has been used even in the most sophisticated computations.\cite{mz93a
mz93b,mz93c,su93}

With increasing recognition that the neutrino transport is one of the
key factors for a successful supernova explosion \cite{jm93,bg93}, this issue has
recently attracted attentions of supernova researchers. In the
neutrino heating scenario of supernova explosion \cite{wi82,bw85},
which is supposed to
be the most promising at present, the shock wave stagnated in the iron
core after the core bounce is expected to be revigorized by neutrinos
diffusing out of the proto neutron star. It has been shown that it is
important in this mechanism to increase the neutrino heating rate
via the dominant processes of electron neutrino absorption on neutrons
and electron antineutrino absorption on protons behind the shock wave.
This heating rate is approximately given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:heat}
Q_{\nu} \approx 110 \cdot \frac{L_{\nu,52} \langle E_{\nu,15}^{2}
\rangle}{r_{7}^{2} \langle \mu \rangle} \cdot
\left \{
\begin{array}{c}
Y_{n} \\
Y_{p}
\end{array}
\right \}
\quad \left [\frac{\mbox{MeV}}{\mbox{sec} \cdot N_{b}}
\right ] \quad .
\end{equation}
Here $Y_{n} = n_{n} / n_{b}$ and $Y_{p} = n_{p} / n_{b}$ are the
number fractions of free neutrons and protons, respectively; the
normalization with the baryonic number density $n_{b}$ indicates
that the rate per baryon is calculated in Eq.~(\ref{eq:heat});
$L_{\nu,52}$ denotes the neutrino luminosity in units of $10^{52}$erg/s,
$E_{\nu,15}$ the neutrino energy normalized by $15$MeV, $r_{7}$ the
radius in $10^{7}$cm; $\langle \mu \rangle$ is the mean value of the
cosine of the angle of neutrino propagation relative to the radial
direction. It is clear from this equation that the higher neutrino energy
and/or the greater neutrino luminosity increase the neutrino heating rate.
One obvious way to achieve that is to decrease the neutrino opacities in
the supernova core. Since the dominant source of opacity for
neutrinos is the neutrino -- nucleon reactions, the modifications of
their rates could have a great impact on the supernova mechanism
\cite{ke95,ja96,hr98,bs98,bs99,re98b}.

As stated above, the neutrino -- nucleon reaction rates used in the
supernova simulations thus far were mostly evaluated by multiplying the rate for a
single target nucleon with the nucleon number density (see, e.g.,
\cite{br85,su94} and references therein), thus ignoring
the correlations due to ambient nucleons. Recently, however, some
authors \cite{bs98,bs99,re98b,re98c,hw91} calculated the
density as well as the spin-density correlations of nucleons due to nuclear
forces based on RPA. As shown later, this method evaluates the
nonuniform nucleon distributions in space and time
using the mean field approximation. On the other hand,
Raffelt and his company \cite{ke95,ja96,rs95,rs96,rs98}
 insisted that the effect from collisions of two
nucleons on the nucleon spin-density fluctuations cannot be neglected, which is
not taken into account in RPA (see also \cite{sw89}).

One of the authors (H. T.) recently published the nuclear EOS based on RMF
and the Thomas~--~Fermi approximation for finite nuclei covering the wide
range of density, temperature and electron fraction of relevance to
the supernova simulations \cite{sh98,sh99}. In this paper,
we calculate the nuclear
correlations in the relativistic RPA based on the Lagrangian used
in the calculation of EOS in RMF \cite{st94a,st94b}.
It is shown in the next section that this
guarantees the thermodynamical consistency of the neutral vector current part
of reaction rates with EOS in the static and long wave length limit
if the nonlinear meson terms are appropriately treated. The neutral axial vector
current and the charged current contributions to reaction rates are
calculated on the same basis but with additional introduction of
the phenomenological Landau~--~Migdal parameters for the isovector
channel \cite{lm78,hp94,yt98,hp93}, since they do not contribute to RMF
and are neglected in the
theory. The possible collisional effects which are
supposed to be important particularly in the low density regime and
might have some roles in forming the neutrino spectra will be
discussed elsewhere \cite{ya99a}, since we consider the consistency of the
reaction rates with EOS which we have currently at hand is more important.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section we formulate
the neutrino reaction rates with nucleons by the so-called dynamical
structure functions and show that RPA is consistent with EOS obtained
by the mean field theory. Then we represent some modifications of the
reaction rates due to the RPA correlations, using the Bruenn's
standard aprroximation formula as a reference. We
summarize the paper with some discussions of implications for the supernova
simulations in the last section.

\section {Neutrino -- Nucleon Reaction Rates}

First we express the reaction rates in a general form.
Since we are interested in low energy reactions
($E \ll M_w$, the mass of weak boson), the weak interaction is well
approximated by the interaction Lagrangian density:
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_{I}(x) = \frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} \  l_{\mu}(x) \  J_{N}^{\mu}(x)
\quad ,
\end{equation}
where $G_{F}$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $l_{\mu}(x)$ is the
lepton weak current given by
\begin{equation}
l_{\mu}(x) = \overline{\psi}_{l}(x) \ \gamma ^{\mu} (1 - \gamma _{5})
\ \psi_{l} (x) \quad ,
\end{equation}
and $J_{N}^{\mu}(x)$ is the nucleon counter part,
\begin{equation}
J_{N}^{\mu}(x) = \overline{\psi}_{N}(x) \ \gamma ^{\mu} (h_{V}
- h_{A} \gamma _{5}) \ \psi_{N} (x) \quad .
\end{equation}
$h_{V}$ and $h_{A}$ are the vector and axial vector coupling constants,
respectively, and are taken for the charged current as $h_{V} = g_{V}
= 1$ and $h_{A} = g_{A} = 1.23$. For the neutral current they are
$h^{n}_{V} = -1/2$, $h^{n}_{A} = -1/2 \, g_{A}$ and
$h^{p}_{V} = 1/2 - 2 \sin ^{2} \theta _{W}$, $h^{p}_{A} = 1/2 \, g_{A}$
for neutron and proton, respectively.  $\theta _{W}$ is the
Weinberg angle.

Following the standard procedure (see, e.g., \cite{ra96}),
the reaction rates are obtained by
making a square of each matrix element evaluated up to the lowest
order of the Fermi coupling constant, taking the thermal ensemble
average for the initial state and summing over the final states:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rate}
R\,(q^{in},\, q^{out}) \ = \ \frac{G_{F}^{2}}{2} \
K_{\alpha \beta}\,(q^{in},\, q^{out}) \
S_{N}^{\alpha \beta}(k) \quad .
\end{equation}
$q^{in}$ and $q^{out}$ are the four momenta of the incident
and outgoing leptons, respectively. $k = q^{in} - q^{out}$ is
the four momentum transferred from lepton to nucleon. In the above
equation, the tensor $K_{\alpha \beta}$ comes from the kinematics of
leptons and given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lepton}
K_{\alpha \beta}\,(q^{in},\, q^{out}) \ = \
8 \, (q_{\alpha}^{out} q_{\beta}^{in} \ +\
q_{\beta}^{out} q_{\alpha}^{in}
\ - \ q^{out} \cdot q^{in} \, g_{\alpha \beta}
\ + \ i \, \varepsilon _{\alpha \beta}^{\ \ \ \delta \gamma}
\, q_{\delta}^{out} q_{\gamma}^{in} ) \quad .
\end{equation}
Here $g_{\alpha \beta}$ is the metric tensor with the signature of
$[+---]$, and $\varepsilon ^{\alpha \beta \delta \gamma} $ is the
antisymmetric tensor with $\varepsilon ^{0123} = 1$. All information
of nucleons is contained in the so called dynamical structure function
$S_{N}^{\alpha \beta}$ defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:struc}
S_{N}^{\alpha \beta}(k) \ = \ \int \! d^{4} \! x \  e^{ikx} \
\langle \, J_{N}^{\alpha}(x) \, J_{N}^{\beta}(0) \, \rangle \quad ,
\end{equation}
where $\langle \, \cdots \, \rangle$ stands for the thermal ensemble average
of the argument.

The structure function can be generally decomposed as follows due to
the isotropy of the system:
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{N}^{\alpha \beta}(k) \ = \ R_{1}(k) \, u^{\alpha} u^{\beta} \
& + & \ R_{2}(k) \, (u^{\alpha} u^{\beta} - g^{\alpha \beta}) \
+ \ R_{3}(k) \, k^{\alpha} k^{\beta} \
\nonumber \\ \label{eq:gendec}
& + &\ R_{4}(k) \, (k^{\alpha} u^{\beta} + u^{\alpha} k^{\beta}) \
+ \ i \, R_{5}(k) \, \varepsilon ^{\alpha \beta \delta \gamma} \,
u_{\delta} u_{\gamma} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $u^{\alpha }$ is a four velocity of the system.
Putting Eqs.~(\ref{eq:lepton}) and (\ref{eq:gendec}) into
Eq.~(\ref{eq:rate}), we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:decom}
\nonumber
R\,(E^{in},\, E^{out}, \, \cos \theta) \  = \ 4 \, G_{F}^{2} \,
E^{in} E^{out} \ [ R_{1}(k) \, (1 + \cos \theta) \
& + & \ R_{2}(k) \, (3 - \cos \theta) \\
& - & \ 2 \, (E^{in} + E^{out}) \, R_{5}(k) \,
(1 - \cos \theta)] \quad ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $E^{in}$ and $E^{out}$ are the energies of the incident and
outgoing leptons, and $\theta$ is the angle between the incident and outgoing
three momenta. There are three terms with
different angular dependences. In general the third contribution is
much smaller than the other two terms and ignored in the following
discussions. The meanings of them become
clearer if we take the non-relativistic limit for the nucleon
kinematics. In this limit $R_{1}(k)$ and $R_{2}(k)$ are reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{1}(k) & \approx & \ h_{V}^{2} \, \int \! d^{4} \! x \ e^{ikx} \
\langle \, \rho_{N}(x) \, \rho_{N}(0) \, \rangle \quad , \\
R_{2}(k) & \approx & \ \frac{h_{A}^{2}}{3} \, \int \! d^{4} \! x \ e^{ikx} \
\langle \, \bbox{s}_{N}^{i}(x) \, \bbox{s}_{N}^{i}(0) \, \rangle
\quad .
\end{eqnarray}
Thus $R_{1}(k)$ comes mainly from the vector currrent part of the nucleon
weak current and is nothing but a density correlation function of
nucleons. $R_{2}(k)$ originates from the axial vector current of
nucleon and represents a spin-density correlation
function. $\rho_{N}(x)$ is the nucleon density and
$\bbox{s}_{N}^{i}(x)$ is the spin density and the spin components $i$ are
summed up.

The calculation of the reaction rates is thus reduced to the evaluation of
these correlation functions. It is, however, easier in the field theory
to treat the time ordered product instead of the ordinary one since
we can apply the perturbation theory more easily for the former (see,
e.g., \cite{la87}). Hence
we define the time ordered product of the weak current
$\Pi _{N}^{\alpha \beta}(k)$ corresponding
to the dynamical structure function as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defcau}
i \, \Pi _{N}^{\alpha \beta}(k) \ = \ \int \! d^{4} \! x \  e^{ikx} \
\langle \, T \, J_{N}^{\alpha}(x) \, J_{N}^{\beta}(0) \, \rangle \quad ,
\end{equation}
where the symbol $T$ stands for the chronological ordering of
operators. It is  also convenient to consider the corresponding
retarded Green function defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defret}
i \, \Pi _{N}^{R \alpha \beta}(k) \ = \ \int \! d^{4} \! x \  e^{ikx} \
\Theta (t) \
\langle \, [ J_{N}^{\alpha}(x), \, J_{N}^{\beta}(0)] \, \rangle \quad ,
\end{equation}
where $[A, B]$ denotes the commutator of $A$ and $B$ and $\Theta (t)$ is the
Heaviside function. In fact, the dynamical structure function is related with the
imaginary parts of those Green functions via a simple formula:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:disp}
S_{N}^{\alpha \beta}(k) \ = \ - \, \frac{2}
{1 + e^{- \beta \, (k_{0} - \Delta \, \mu})} \ Im \, \Pi_{N}^{\alpha \beta}
\ = \ - \, \frac{2}
{1 - e^{- \beta \, (k_{0} - \Delta \, \mu})} \ Im \, \Pi_{N}^{R \alpha \beta}
\quad .
\end{equation}
Here $\Delta \mu = \mu _{out} - \mu _{in}$ is the difference of the
chemical potentials between the outgoing and incident
nucleons. Thus what we have to do is to somehow calculate
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:defcau}) or (\ref{eq:defret}).

\subsection{Thermodynamic Consistency}

In this section, we discuss the thermodynamic consistency of the
approximation for reaction rates with that for
EOS. By consistency we mean the following: The reaction rates are
nothing but correlation functions as stated above. For example, the
density correlation function reduces in the static and long wave length
to $\langle (N - \langle N \rangle ) \,
\cdot \, (N - \langle N \rangle ) \rangle \, / \, V^{2} = ( \langle N^{2}
\rangle - \langle N \rangle ^{2}) \, / \, V^{2}$. Here $N$ and $V$ are the
baryonic number and the volume of the system, respectively. This
thermal ensemble average is related to the
thermodynamic derivative of the number density with
respect to the chemical potential as $\left ( \partial N /
\partial \mu \right ) _{T} = \beta \, \langle (N - \langle N \rangle ) \,
\cdot \, (N - \langle N \rangle )$ with $\beta = 1 / T$, which is
obtained from EOS \cite{kb62}. This sort of
relation should be satisfied also in approximate formulations, since it
guarantees the correct behavior of reaction rates in this limit.
In the following we show that RPA is consistent in
this sense with the mean field theory \cite{bs98}. The argument is mainly
indebted to the papers \cite{bk61,by62}. For simplicity we consider
the non-relativistic density correlation in
the imaginary time formalism. The extension to the relativistic case
\cite{vb98} and/or to the real time formalism is possible \cite{iv98}.

EOS can be calculated once the number density is obtained for a given
temperature and chemical potential. The number density in turn is
obtained from the single particle Green function as
$n_{b} (x_{1}) = - i \, G(1, 1^{+})$. Here
the Green function is defined as usual, $i \, G(1, 2) = \langle T \, \phi (x_{1})
\phi ^{\dagger} (x_{2}) \rangle$, and $1^{+}$ in the argument denotes the limit
$t_{2} \rightarrow t_{1} + 0$. Hence the approximation for EOS can be
regarded as the approximation of the Green function, or that of the
self energy $\Sigma$ since the Green function is determined by the
Dyson equation $G^{-1} = G_{0}^{-1} - \Sigma$, where $G_{0}$ is the
free propagator.

The response of the system to the external disturbance is studied by adding the
extra interaction like, \\ ${\cal L}_{ext} =
\int ^{-i \beta} _{0} \! d\bbox{x_{1}} dt_{1} d\bbox{x_{2}} dt_{2}
\, \phi ^{\dagger} (\bbox{x_{2}}, t_{2})
\, U(\bbox{x_{2}}, t_{2}, \bbox{x_{1}}, t_{1})
\, \phi (\bbox{x_{1}}, t_{1})$, where only the time integration region
is shown explicitly. Then the response function is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defl}
\left . \frac{\delta G(1, 1';U)}{\delta U(2', 2)} \right |
_{U = 0} \ = \ - \ \left [ G_{2}(1, 1', 2, 2') - G(1, 1') \,
G(2, 2') \right ] \ = \ i \, L(1, 1', 2, 2') \quad ,
\end{equation}
where $G_{2}(1, 1', 2, 2')$ is the two particle Green function, and
$G(1, 2; U)$ is the single particle Green function under the
external disturbance and is written in the interaction representation
as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defgu}
i \, G(1, 2; U) \ = \ \frac{\langle T \ S \, \phi (x_{1}) \,
\phi ^{\dagger}(x_{2}) \rangle}
{\langle T \ S \rangle} \quad
\end{equation}
with $S = \exp (- i {\cal L} _{ext})$.
Eq.~(\ref{eq:defl}) is derived directly by taking a derivative of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:defgu}). The retarded Green function defined by
Eq.~(\ref{eq:defret}) is obtained from the response function
$L(1, 1^{+}, 2, 2^{+})$ by
the analytic continuation \cite{kb62}. The equation for the response function
$L(1, 1', 2, 2')$ is obtained by taking a functional derivative
of the Dyson equation as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:leq}
L(1, 1', 2, 2') \ = \  L_{0}(1, 1', 2, 2') \ - \
\int \! \! dx_{3} dx_{3'} dx_{4} dx_{4'} \
L_{0}(1, 1', 3, 3') \, \cdot \, \Xi (3', 3, 4', 4) \, \cdot \, L(4, 4', 2, 2')
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
i \, L_{0}(1, 1', 2, 2') \ & = & \ G(1, 2') \, G(2, 1') \\
\label{eq:defxi}
i\, \Xi(1', 1, 2', 2) \ & = & \ \frac{\delta \Sigma (1', 1)}{\delta G(2, 2')}
\quad .
\end{eqnarray}
It was shown \cite{by62} that if the self-energy $\Sigma$ is
derived from a potential as
$\Sigma (1', 1) = \delta \Phi / \delta G(1, 1')$, or the
integrability condition $\delta \Sigma (1', 1) / \delta G(2, 2') =
\delta \Sigma (2', 2) / \delta G(1, 1')$ is satisfied, then the approximation
is conservative, that is, the approximate number density as well as
the response function so obtained
satisfies the conservation equation just like the exact one.
This result in turn dictates the behavior
of the response function in the static and long wave length limit as
follows. The response function is in general given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lsp}
L(\Omega, \bbox{k}) \ = \ \frac{1}{2 \pi } \int _{-\infty} ^{\infty}
\! d k_{0} \
\frac{L^{>}(k_{0}, \bbox{k}) - L^{<}(k_{0}, \bbox{k})}
{\Omega - k_{0}} \ = \ \frac{1}{2 \pi } \int _{-\infty} ^{\infty}
\! d k_{0} \
\frac{(1 - e ^{-\beta k_{0}}) \, L^{>}(k_{0}, \bbox{k})}
{\Omega - k_{0}} \quad .
\end{equation}
Here $L(\Omega, \bbox{k})$ is a Fourier transform of $L(1, 1^{+}, 2,
2^{+})$ with respect to $x_{1} - x_{2}$ and $\Omega$ is an imaginary
energy. $L^{>}(k_{0}, \bbox{k})$ and $L^{<}(k_{0}, \bbox{k})$ are
analytic functions with respect to $k_{0}$  and are Fourier
transformed from $L^{>}(x_{1}, x_{2}) = \langle (n_{b}(x_{1}) -
\langle n_{b}(x_{1}) \rangle ) \, \cdot \, (n_{b}(x_{2}) -
\langle n_{b}(x_{2}) \rangle ) \rangle$ and $L^{<}(x_{1}, x_{2})
= \langle (n_{b}(x_{2}) - \langle n_{b}(x_{2}) \rangle ) \, \cdot \,
(n_{b}(x_{1}) - \langle n_{b}(x_{1}) \rangle ) \rangle$, respectively.
Thus $L^{>}(x_{1}, x_{2})$ is nothing but a density correlation function we
are seeking for. In fact, we use this equation (\ref{eq:lsp}) to
derive the density correlation function $L(\Omega, \bbox{k})$.
If the approximate response function satisfies the conservation law,
$L^{>}(k_{0}, 0) = 2 \pi \, \delta( k_{0} ) \, \tilde{L}^{>}(0,0)$
in the long wave length
limit, $|\bbox{k}| \rightarrow 0$. This then results in the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:llong}
\lim_{|\bbox{k}| \rightarrow 0} L(0, \bbox{k}) \ = \
- \, \beta \, \tilde{L}^{>}(0, 0) \ = \ - \, \beta \,
V \, \langle (n_{b} -
\langle n_{b} \rangle ) \, \cdot \, (n_{b} -
\langle n_{b} \rangle ) \rangle \quad .
\end{equation}

On the other hand, the thermodynamical derivative, $\left (\partial n_{b} /
\partial \mu \right )_{T} = - i \, \partial G(1, 1^{+}) / \partial \mu$,
is evaluated from the Dyson equation as
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\frac{\partial G(1, 1')}{\partial \mu} \ & = & \
- \ \int \! \! dx_{2} dx_{2'} \ G(1, 2') \, \cdot \, \frac{\partial G^{-1}(2', 2)}
{\partial \mu } \, \cdot \, G(2, 1') \\
\nonumber
& = & \ - \ \int \! \! dx_{2} dx_{2'} \ G(1, 2') \
\left [ \delta(2' - 2) - \frac{\partial \Sigma (2', 2)}{\partial \mu}
\right ] \ G(2, 1') \\
& = & \ - \ \int \! \! dx_{2'} \ G(1, 2') \, \cdot \, G(2', 1') \
\nonumber \\
& & \ + \ \int \! \! dx_{2} dx_{2'} dx_{3} dx_{3'} \
G(1, 2') \, \cdot \, i \, \Xi (2', 2, 3', 3) \, \cdot \,
G(2, 1') \, \cdot \, \frac{\partial G(3, 3')}{\partial \mu} .
\end{eqnarray}
Solving this equation using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:leq}),~(\ref{eq:llong}), we get
\begin{equation}
\left (\frac{\partial N}{\partial \mu } \right )_{T} \ = \ - \, i \, V \,
\frac{\partial G(1, 1^{+})}{\partial \mu } \ = \ V \,
\lim_{|\bbox{k}| \rightarrow 0} L(0, \bbox{k}) \ = \
\beta \, \langle (N - \langle N \rangle ) (N - \langle N \rangle ) \rangle
\quad .
\end{equation}

This is the equation which represents the thermodynamical
consistency between the response function and EOS. So far the only
assumption is that we have used the same approximate self energy
for EOS and the response function. Hence the above
argument can be applied to any conserved current and conserving
approximation. In the next
section, we consider a specific approximation of the self energy which
leads to the mean field theory and RPA.

\subsection{RPA}

We base our discussion on the Lagrangian of the relativistic mean
field (RMF) theory:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{RMF} & \  = \ & \overline{\psi}_{N} \, (\,
i \, \gamma_{\mu} \, \partial ^{\mu} \, - \, M_{N} \, - \,
g_{\sigma} \, \sigma
\, - \, g_{\omega} \, \gamma_{\mu} \, \omega ^{\mu}
\, - \, g_{\rho} \, \gamma_{\mu} \, \tau^{a} \, \rho^{a \mu} \, ) \,
\psi_{N} \nonumber \\
& \ + \ & \frac{1}{2} \, \partial _{\mu} \, \sigma \, \partial ^{\mu} \, \sigma
\, - \, \frac{1}{2} \, m_{\sigma}^{2} \, \sigma ^{2}
\, - \, \frac{1}{3} \, g_{2} \, \sigma ^{3} \, - \, \frac{1}{4} \,
g_{3} \, \sigma ^{4} \nonumber \\
& \ - \ & \frac{1}{4}\, F_{\mu\nu} \, F^{\mu\nu} \, + \,
\frac{1}{2}\,  m_{\omega}^{2}
\, \omega _{\mu} \, \omega ^{\mu} \, + \, \frac{1}{4} \,  c_{3} \,
(\omega _{\mu} \, \omega ^{\mu}) ^{2} \nonumber \\
& \ - \ & \frac{1}{4} \, G_{\mu\nu}^{a} \, G^{a\mu\nu} \, + \,
\frac{1}{2} \, m_{\rho}^{2} \, \rho _{\mu} ^{a} \, \rho ^{a\mu}
\quad ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the standard notations are used: $\psi _{N}$ denotes a baryonic
field of mass $M_{N}$. $\sigma$, $\omega _{\mu}$ and
$\rho ^{a} _{\mu}$ are $\sigma $, $\omega $ and $\rho $ meson fields
with $m_{\sigma } = 511$MeV, $m_{\omega } = 783$MeV and
$m_{\rho } = 770$MeV, respectively.
$F_{\mu\nu}$ and $G_{\mu\nu}^{a}$ are the antisymmetric field tensors
for $\omega $ and $\rho $ mesons. The constants $g_{\sigma} = 10.0$,
$g_{\omega } = 12.6$ and $g_{\rho } = 4.6$ are the coupling constants for
the interactions between mesons and nucleons. $g_{2} = -7.2
\mbox{fm$^{-1}$}$, $g_{3} = 0.62$ and
$c_{3} = 71.3$ are the self-coupling constants for $\sigma $ and $\omega $
mesons. The quoted numbers are taken from the TM1 parameter set
published by Sugahara \& Toki \cite{st94b}(see also \cite{st94a}).

The approximate self-energy employed in the mean field theory is given
as follows. For simplicity, only the contribution from $\sigma $
meson, that is the scalar part, is shown. The extension to other meson
contributions is done in an analogous way.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:aprx}
\Sigma _{s} (1', 1) \ = \ g_{\sigma } \, \delta (1 - 1') \, \cdot \,
\sigma (1) \quad ,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ meson is assumed to be a classical field and obeys the
equation of motion:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sig}
(\partial _{\nu } \partial ^{\nu } \ + \ m_{\sigma }^{2}) \, \sigma
\ + \ g_{2} \, \sigma ^{2} \ + \ g_{3} \, \sigma ^{3}
\ = \ - \ \Delta _{0} ^{-1} \, \sigma
\ + \ g_{2} \, \sigma ^{2} \ + \ g_{3} \, \sigma ^{3}
\ = \ - \, g_{\sigma } \langle \, \overline{\psi } _{N} \psi _{N} \, \rangle
\quad .
\end{equation}
Here $\Delta _{0} ^{-1}$ is the inverse of the free
propagator. Solving Eqs.~(\ref{eq:aprx}), (\ref{eq:sig}) with the
Dyson equation of nucleon consistently for stationary and uniform matter, we
obtain RMF for the nuclear EOS.

On the other hand, using the same self-energy
and Eq.~(\ref{eq:sig}), we can evaluate $\Xi$ defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:defxi}) as
\begin{equation}
\Xi(1', 1, 2', 2) \ = \ g_{\sigma }^{2} \, \delta (1' - 1) \,
\delta (2' - 2) \, \cdot \, \left [ - \, \Delta _{0}^{-1}(1 - 2)  \, + \,
2 \, g_{2} \, \overline{\sigma } \, + \, 3 \, g_{3} \, \overline{\sigma} ^{2}
\right ]^{-1} \, \delta (1 - 2) \quad ,
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\sigma}$ is the expectation value of $\sigma $ in the static
uniform matter. It is obvious that this approximation is conserving in
the above sense. Putting this into Eq.~(\ref{eq:leq}), we get
the equation for $L(1, 1^{+}, 2, 2^{+})$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eqsigma}
L(1, 1^{+}, 2, 2^{+}) \ = \ L_{0}(1, 1^{+}, 2, 2^{+}) \ - \
\int \! \! dx_{3} dx_{4} \ L_{0}(1, 1^{+}, 3, 3^{+}) \, \cdot \,
\frac{- \, g_{\sigma }^{2}}{\tilde{\Delta } ^{-1} (3 - 4)} \, \cdot \,
L(4, 4^{+}, 2, 2^{+}) \quad .
\end{equation}
Here $\tilde{\Delta }^{-1} \, = \, \Delta _{0}^{-1}
\, - \, 2 \, g_{2} \, \overline{\sigma } \, - \,
3 \, g_{3} \, \overline{\sigma} ^{2}$. This is well known RPA except
for the modification of the meson propagator due to its
self-coupling.
Thus we established the thermodynamic consistency between RMF and RPA.

It should be noted that the modified meson propagator is also obtained by
expanding the Lagrangian around the stationary point up to the
quadratic order of perturbation \cite{hn89,ma97a,ma97b,ma97c}.
Since the stationary solution is nothing
but the mean field, the correlation is described by the harmonic
oscillation around the mean field in the above approximation. In this
sense, it is natural that we get RPA consistent with RMF in the static
and long wave length limit.

The above argument is in a rigorous sense applicable only to
the conserved quantity such
as the baryonic number. In general the axial vector part of the
nucleon weak current is not a conserved current. However, we extend
the above method to the axial vector contribution, since we can
thus argue both vector and axial vector contributions on the same
basis. Moreover, the interpretation that we describe the correlations by the
harmonic oscillations around the static and uniform mean field is
still valid. Thus the basic equations of RPA are summarized as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:rpaeq}
Tr \! \left [ \, \Gamma ^{a} \, L(1 - 2) \, \Gamma ^{b} \, \right ]
& = & \ Tr \! \left [ \, \Gamma ^{a} \, L_{0}(1 - 2) \, \Gamma ^{b} \, \right ]
\nonumber \\
& - & \ \int \! \! dx_{3} dx_{4} \sum _{\Gamma ^{c}} \,
Tr \! \left [ \, \Gamma ^{a} \, L_{0}(1 - 3) \, \Gamma ^{c} \, \right ]
\, \cdot \, V^{c}_{pot}(3 - 4) \, \cdot \, Tr \! \left [ \,
\Gamma ^{c} \, L(4 - 2) \, \Gamma ^{b} \, \right ]
\quad .
\end{eqnarray}
Here $L(1 - 2)$ and $L_{0}(1 - 2)$ are the abbreviations of
$L(1, 1^{+}, 2, 2^{+})$ and  $L_{0}(1, 1^{+}, 2, 2^{+})$,
respectively. $\Gamma $'s denote gamma matrices, $\bbox{1},
\gamma ^{\mu}, \gamma ^{\mu} \gamma _{5}$, and the matrix structure of
the response functions is explicitly indicated by the trace
operations. $V_{pot}$ is the nuclear potential mediated by mesons and
is given by the modified propagators as
\begin{equation}
V_{pot} ^{s} (1 - 2) \ = \ - \, g_{\sigma }^{2} \, \tilde{\Delta } (1 - 2)
\end{equation}
for $\sigma$ meson, for example. The response function $L(1 - 2)$ is
analytically continued to the retarded Green function, which in turn
gives the structure functions by Eq.~(\ref{eq:disp}).
It is also possible to work in the real
time formalism from the beginning, which we did in this
paper. Regardless, they are equivalent to each other \cite{gu94}. The explicit
expressions of $Tr \! \left [ \, \Gamma ^{a} \, L_{0}(1 - 3) \, \Gamma ^{c} \,
\right]$ are given in Appendix.

It is clear from the above derivation that RPA is an approximation
obtained from the self-energy evaluated up to the first order of the coupling
constant and that processes such as collisions of nucleons are ignored.
This can be understood from the fact that RPA is also obtained from the
collisionless Boltzmann equation \cite{kb62}. The collisional effect might be
important particularly in the low density regime \cite{rs95,rs96,sw89}
and could in principle be included in the present formulation
by taking  higher order corrections of the self-energy \cite{kr86}.
It is, however, very difficult to do this in practice. In this
paper we make more of the
consistency of the approximations used for reaction rates and EOS
we have currently at hand. The study of possible effects of
scatterings which was discussed in the introduction will be
published elsewhere \cite{ya99a}.

In RMF we ignore the negative energy contribution to the nucleon
spinor. In so doing, the positive energy part is defined in a
density-dependent way. This extra density dependence should have
made Eqs.~(\ref{eq:eqsigma}), (\ref{eq:rpaeq}) more
complicated, which we ignored in this paper. It should be noted that this
inconsistency is quite minor except for small parametr regions very
close to the phase boundary with which we are not concerned here.

\subsection{Residual Interactions}

The Lagrangian shown above does not include the contributions of the pion
and the tensor coupling of the $\rho$ meson since they do not contribute
to the mean field \cite{st94a,st94b}. To describe
fluctuations in spin and isospin around the mean field
these residual interactions should be added to the above Lagrangian as \cite{bm90}
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_{res} \ = \ {\cal L}_{\pi } \, + \, {\cal L}_{\rho } \ = \
- \  \overline{\psi } _{N} \, \left [ \, i \, \frac{g_{\pi }}{2 M_{N}} \,
\gamma ^{\mu } \, \gamma _{5} \, \partial _{\mu} \pi ^{a}
\ - \ \frac{g_{\rho } \, C_{\rho }}{2 M_{N}} \, \sigma _{\mu \nu } \,
\partial ^{\nu} \rho ^{a \mu } \, \right ] \tau ^{a} \,
\psi _{N} \quad
\end{equation}
with $g_{\pi }^{2} / 4 \pi = 14.08$, $g_{\rho }^{2} / 4 \pi = 0.41$
and $C_{\rho } = 6.1$. Accordingly $\sigma ^{\mu \nu}$ is added to
$\Gamma $'s in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rpaeq}).

It is also known that there are short ranged repulsive correlations
for these isovector channels. They are conveniently included
by the phenomenological Landau~--~Migdal parameters \cite{lm78}.
In this paper they are
implemented, following Horowitz \& Piekarewicz \cite{hp94,hp93},
by modifying the meson propagators as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{q_{\mu }^{2} \, - \, m_{\pi }^{2}} & \  \rightarrow \ &
\left [ \, \frac{1}{q_{\mu }^{2} \, - \, m_{\pi }^{2}}
\ - \ \frac{g'_{\pi }}{q_{\mu }^{2}} \, \right ] \\
\frac{1}{q_{\mu }^{2} \, - \, m_{\rho }^{2}} & \  \rightarrow \ &
\left [ \frac{1}{q_{\mu }^{2} \, - \, m_{\rho }^{2}}
\ - \ \frac{g'_{\rho }}{q_{\mu }^{2}} \, \right ]
\end{eqnarray}
with the Landau~--~Migdal parameters $g'_{\pi } = 0.70$ and $g'_{\rho } = 0.30$.
Unlike the conventional non-relativistic treatment, we take different
parameter value for $\rho $ mesons from pions, which better reproduces the
electron scattering data as well as the spin-transfer observables in
$(p, n)$ reactions \cite{hp94,yt98,ba83,ch93,sa94,hp93}.

As for the electromagnetic interaction, we make the Thomas-Fermi
approximation, where the photon propagator is replaced by the
screened one as
\begin{equation}
\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{- \, q_{\mu }^{2}} \qquad \rightarrow \qquad
\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{q_{TF}^{2} \, - \, q_{\mu }^{2}}
\end{equation}
with $q_{TF}^{2} = 4 \, e^{2} \, \pi ^{1/3} (3 \, n_{e})^{2/3}$, where $e$
and $n_{e}$ are the electron charge and number density, respectively.
Then it was added to the $V_{pot}$'s in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rpaeq}).

It is finally noted that since
the neutrino couples only to the spin-transverse correlations in RPA, the pion
(spin-longitudinal correlations) does not contribute to the neutrino
reaction rates considered here.

\section{Results}

\subsection{Neutral Current Reactions}

In this section, we discuss  correlation effects on the neutral current
reactions, that is, neutrino -- nucleon scatterings. The high density regime,
$\rho _{b} \geq 2 \times 10^{14}$g/cm$^{3}$, and the low density regime,
$\rho _{b} < 2 \times 10^{14}$g/cm$^{3}$, are discussed separately,
since the behaviors of $R_{1}(k)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:decom}), which is
refered to as  the vector current correlations in the following,
are qualitatively different between the two regimes.

The vector current correlation is mainly induced by the scalar isoscalar meson
$\sigma $ and the vector isoscalar meson $\omega$, while the axial vector current,
which is more important for the neutrino opacity, is dominantly
affected by the vector isovector meson $\rho $.

As shown shortly, the structure functions of nucleons are in general
narrow peaked as a function of the transferred energy in the sense
that their width is much smaller than the transferred
three momentum. This feature reflects the fact that the nucleon mass is typically
much greater than the neutrino energy and the scattering is almost isoenergetic.
If we assume that the scatterings are exactly isoenergetic, that is,
the structure functions are proportional to the delta function of the
transferred energy, then we obtain the well known Bruenn's formula \cite{br85}
which we use as a reference in this paper. In some cases this
approximation alone overestimates the cross section
significantly \cite{sc90}. This issue will be addressed again in
the following sections.

\subsubsection{high density regime}

First we consider the high density regime, $\rho _{b} \geq 2 \times
10^{14}$g/cm$^{3}$. Fig.~\ref{fig1} shows the structure
functions $R_{1}(k_{0}, |\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}|)$ and
$R_{2}(k_{0}, |\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}|)$
as a function of the transferred energy $k_{0} $ for the density,
temperature and proton fraction given in the figure. The transferred
three momentum $|\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}|$ is taken to be
a typical neutrino energy
$\sim 3 \, T$. The long dashed curves correspond to the structure
functions of the non-interacting nucleons. The width of the structure
functions gives a measure of average energy exchange between
neutrino and nucleon. As stated above, we obtain
the Bruenn's formula \cite{br85} if we neglect this width of these functions
entirely and approximate the structure functions by
the delta functions of $k_{0}$ as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:rapp1}
R_{1}(k_{0} , \, |\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}|)
& \approx & 2 \, \pi \, \delta (k_{0} )
\, \cdot \, \left[\, {h_{V}^{n}}^{2} \, \eta _{n} \, + \,
{h_{V}^{p}}^{2} \, \eta _{p} \, \right ] \\
\label{eq:rapp2}
R_{2}(k_{0} , \, |\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}|)
& \approx & 2 \, \pi \, \delta (k_{0} )
\, \cdot \, \left[\, {h_{A}^{n}}^{2} \, \eta _{n} \, + \,
{h_{A}^{p}}^{2} \, \eta _{p} \, \right ]
\end{eqnarray}
with $\eta _{N} = \displaystyle{\int} \! \frac{2 \, d^{3} \!
 p}{(2\pi)^{3}} \, f_{N}(p) [1 - f_{N}(p)]$
for $N = n, p$. Here $f_{N}(p)$ is Fermi-Dirac
 distribution function for the nucleon.
Note that the long wave length limit $|\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}| \rightarrow 0$
is also taken in this approximation.
It is obvious from the figure that this approximation is not very good
for this large momentum transfer which is common in the hot proto
neutron star \cite{sc90}. It should be noted that the neglection of the energy
transfer leads to the overestimation of the reaction rate.

The short dashed curves are obtained from the first term including
$L_{0}$ on the right hand side of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:rpaeq}), where only the modified dispersion relation in medium,
that is, the effective mass and potential of nucleons is taken into
account. Note the effective mass of the nucleon becomes
as small as $\sim 0.6M_{N}$ in RMF (see \cite{st94a,st94b}).
The low effective mass renders the structure functions a little bit
wider than for the non-interacting case, since the energy exchange
between neutrino and nucleon is more facilitated, and lowers
their amplitudes as well.
It is important to note that with this modification alone, the neutrino
scattering rates are considerably reduced \cite{re98a}. However, as shown in the
preceding section, the inclusion of the effective mass alone
is not consistent with EOS obtained in RMF.

The solid curves in the figure shows the structure functions with the
RPA correlation. As already mentioned, the scalar
isoscalar meson $\sigma $ and the vector isoscalar meson
$\omega $ are the dominant agents of the correlation for $R_{1}(k)$.
In the high density regime, the contribution of $\omega $ dominates
over that of $\sigma $, making the nuclear force effectively repulsive
and having the structure function even smaller for small $k_{0}$.
On the other hand, the $\rho $ meson is the dominant
mediator of the nuclear correlation for $R_{2}(k)$. Since the
typical transferred momentum is still small enough for the short
ranged repulsive force described by the Landau~--~Migdal parameters to
be dominant, the response of this channel is also suppressed.
The feature mentioned here is common to the structure functions
in this density regime.

As the temperature decreases, the structure function is more skewed
toward the positive energy transfer $k_{0} > 0$, reflecting the fact that the
extraction of energy from the nuclear medium becomes more difficult
due to the Fermi blocking for the down scattered nucleon. This is
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.

On the other hand, as the density becomes higher, the nucleon
effective mass gets smaller ($M^{*}_{N} \sim 0.4 M_{N}$ at $\rho _{b} =
5\times 10^{14}$g/cm$^{3}$), making the amplitudes of
the structure functions, both for $R_{1}(k)$ and $R_{2}(k)$, smaller without RPA.
The $\omega $ meson becomes even more dominant over the
$\sigma $ meson and thus RPA further reduces the amplitude of $R_{1}(k)$, as
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}.

The case of the proton fraction $Y_{p} = 0.1$ is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig4}. The effect of RPA increases with decreasing $Y_{p}$,
which could be understood as follows. The vector current correlation comes mainly
from the neutron sector, since the coupling constant for proton
$h_{V}^{p} \sim 0$. Since the neutron density increases as the proton
fraction decreases, the vector current correlation becomes greater,
reducing the structure function $R_{1}(k)$.

The total scattering rate of the neutrino with the incident energy
$E_{\nu }^{in}$ is given by the integration of the structure function
with respect to the transferred momentum $\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}$
and energy $k_{0} $:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:toteq}
R^{tot}(E_{\nu }^{in}) & = & \int \! \frac{d^{3} q_{\nu }^{out}}
{(2 \pi )^{3}} \, \frac{1}{2 E_{\nu }^{in} \, 2 E_{\nu }^{out}} \
R(E_{\nu }^{in}, \, E_{\nu }^{out}, \, \cos \theta )
\  \left [ \, 1 \, - \, f_{\nu }(E_{\nu }^{out}) \, \right ]\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{(2 \pi )^{3}} \, \int ^{\infty}_{0} \!
2 \pi k \, dk \, \int _{-k}^{k_{0}^{max}} \! \! \! d k_{0} \
\frac{E_{\nu }^{in} - k_{0} }{E_{\nu }^{in}}
\frac{1}{2 E_{\nu }^{in} \, 2 E_{\nu }^{out}} \
R(E_{\nu }^{in}, \, E_{\nu }^{out}, \, \cos \theta )
\  \left [ \, 1 \, - \, f_{\nu }(E_{\nu }^{out})
\, \right ] ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $k_{0} ^{max} = min(k, \, 2E_{\nu }^{in} - k)$.
If we ignore the energy exchange and the Fermi blocking for the scattered neutrino,
and insert Eqs.~(\ref{eq:rapp1}) and (\ref{eq:rapp2}) into $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$
in the above equation, we obtain the standard approximate formula~\cite{br85}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:totap}
R^{tot}(E_{\nu }^{in}) \  \approx \ \sum _{N = n, p} \frac{G_{F}^{2}}{\pi } \
\left ( E_{\nu }^{in} \right )^{2} \
\left \{ \, \eta _{N} \, \left [ \, \left (h_{V}^{N} \right )^{2} \, + \,
3 \, \left ( h_{A}^{N} \right )^{2} \, \right ]
\, \right \}
\end{equation}
which is frequently used in literatures. In the following we use this
rate as a reference in evaluating quantitatively the suppression factors of
the total scattering rates due to the correlation. It should be noted, however,
that the difference between these rates also comes from the inclusion of the
effective nucleon mass and the finite energy and momentum transfer,
which are neglected in Eq.~(\ref{eq:totap}).

Fig.~\ref{fig5} shows the ratio of $R^{tot}$
evaluated for the first term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rpaeq})
by using the exact formula given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:toteq}) to $R^{tot}$ by
using the approximate expression given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:totap}) as
a contour map in the density and temperature
plane for the given proton fraction. The contributions from
$R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$ are shown separately. The incident neutrino
energy is assumed to be $3 \, T$, and the blocking factor was dropped
again.

It is again clear that the reaction rates are substantially smaller than the
standard ones before RPA is included. This is mainly due
to the decrease of the nucleon effective mass. In fact, as the density
increases, the reduction becomes greater, which is common to
the vector current part from $R_{1}$ and the axial vector current part
from $R_{2}$. The non-monotonic temperature dependence is
understood as follows: In the standard approximation formula, as
mentioned above, the energy exchange between neutrino and nucleon is
neglected. In the low temperature regime, this neglection tends to
overestimate the Fermi blocking for the scattered nucleon, reducing
the standard rate. As a result, the suppression factor becomes larger
as the temperature increases. For even higher temperature, however,
the width of the structure function cannot be ignored and lowers the
total scattering rate just like the neutrino -- electron scattering.
Since the latter effect surpasses the former at some temperature, the
suppression factor begins to decrease again above this
temperature, which becomes larger as the density increases.
These features were discussed in the paper by Schinder \cite{sc90} where he
studied the effect of the recoil of nucleons.

Fig.~\ref{fig6} shows the suppression factor for the reaction rates
with the inclusion of RPA. It is evident that both the vector current and
axial vector current contributions are further suppressed, which is expected
from the above results for the structure functions. Indeed the
reaction rates become less than half the standard rates around the
saturation density. Since the delayed explosion is very sensitive to
the neutrino luminosity and the energy, this suppression could have an
significant influence on the final outcome of the core collapse.

we can understand the different density and temperature dependences of
the vector and axial vector contributions. In the former case, the
RPA suppression is strongly density dependent, since the nuclear force
is determined by the competition of the attractive $\sigma $ meson and
the repulsive $\omega $ meson. As a result, the reaction rates are
more strongly suppressed in the higher density regime. On the other
hand, the balance between the attractive $\rho $ meson and the
repulsive short range force described by the Landau~--~Migdal
parameter is determined by the momentum transfer,
thus more temperature dependent. Since the nuclear force is more
repulsive for the smaller momentum transfer, that is, in the low
temperature regime, the rate is reduced further there.

Figs.~\ref{fig7} and \ref{fig8} shows the suppression factors for
the different proton
fractions. As expected, the axial vector part is more affected, since
the isovector $\rho $ meson is convening its correlation. It is also
clear that the suppression is stronger for the smaller proton fraction.

\subsubsection{low density regime}

The low density regime considered here is characterized by the
appearance of nuclei for low temperatures \cite{sh98,sh99,ms95}.
Although we cannot treat
the coexistence phase of nuclei and nucleons by the current
formulation and consider here only the gas phase where no nuclei exist,
the precursor of the phase transition is already imprinted in this regime.

On the contrary to the previous section, the $\sigma $ meson dominates the
$\omega $ meson and the isoscalar nuclear force becomes
attractive. As a result, the correlation enhances the reaction rate
coming from the vector current part. This can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig9},
where the structure functions $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$ are shown for the
temperature near the phase boundary. The enhancement of $R_{1}$
in the vicinity of $k_{0} = 0$ suggests the existence of the static
unstable mode \cite{lh89}. In fact, $R_{1}$ diverges on the so-called spinodal
line \cite{hp93}. From the thermodynamic consistency discussed above,
$\left ( \frac{\partial N}{\partial \mu } \right )_{T}$ also diverges
on this line. This behavior is better indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig10},
in which the enhancement factor with respect to the standard Bruenn's
formula is plotted as a contour in the density temperature plane. As
the temperature decreases, the reaction rate becomes larger. The lower
boundary of the computation region roughly corresponds to the spinodal line
obtained by the current model. Incidentally, the axial vector
contribution is hardly affected since the $\sigma $ and $\omega $
mesons are minor contributors for this channel.

Since in reality this liquid-gas phase transition occurs not by the
spinodal decomposition but by the nucleation, the actual phase
boundary does not correspond to the spinodal line except for the
critical point, and the spinodal line is never reached
\cite{sh98,sh99,ms95}. The critical
temperature obtained from RPA is about $15$MeV, which is actually
consistent with the value obtained from EOS by Shen et al. \cite{sh98,sh99}.

Although the enhancement factor is still relatively large in the
region not very close to the phase boundary, this effect has only
minor importance for the neutrino opacity, because the vector
current contribution is typically much smaller ($\sim 1/4$) than the axial
vector contribution. Provided that the axial vector part is slightly suppressed
in this regime due to the repulsive nuclear interaction for that
channel, the total scattering rate will not be increased significantly
unless the critical point is approached very closely.

\subsection{Charged Current Reactions}

The RPA correlation is calculated for the charged current
reactions just the same way as for the neutral current reactions
except that the vector isovector $\rho $ meson is the only mediator of the
correlation. It is noted again that since only the spin-transverse correlation
matters for the neutrino reaction rates in RPA, the pion does not
make any contribution. As a result, for relatively small momentum
transfer of our current interest the nuclear force is repulsive and
the correlation always tends to suppress both the vector current and
the axial vector current contribution to
the charged current reaction rates like the axial vector part of
the neutral current. This is true not only for the high density
regime but also for the low density regime
unlike the vector current part of the neutral current reaction rates
which is enhanced by the liquid -- gas phase transition.

Fig.~\ref{fig11} shows a typical modification of the structure functions
around the saturation density for the symmetric nuclear
matter. Depicted are $R_{1}(k_{0}, |\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}|)$
and $R_{2}(k_{0}, |\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}|)$ for the $e^{-} + p \rightarrow
\nu _{e} + n$ reaction
with the outgoing neutrino energy of $\sim \mu _{e}$, the electron
chemical potential. It is clear again that the decrease of the nucleon
effective mass alone (the short dashed curve) accounts for
more than half of the suppression with respect to the non-interacting
case (the long dashed curve).  Moreover, as
the electron chemical potential is quite large, $\sim 250 $MeV,
the average energy transfer from the incident electron to the nucleon
becomes also large. Hence the complete neglection of energy transfer
assumed in the approximate formula \cite{br85} leads to sizable overestimation of
the reaction rates for this high energy neutrino emission.

The results change qualitatively for the asymmetric matter, since
the potential for the neutron is different from that for the proton
in medium. This is understood as follows. In the non-relativistic
limit the dispersion relation for the nucleon is written as
\begin{equation}
E_{N} (\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}) \ = \ \frac{|\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}|^{2}}
{2 M_{N}^{*}} \, + \, U^{pot}_{N} \quad ,
\end{equation}
and the potential difference is given in RMF by
\begin{equation}
\Delta U_{pn}^{pot} \ \equiv \  U^{pot}_{p} \, - \, U^{pot}_{n} \ = \
2 \, g_{\rho } \langle \rho \rangle \ = \ 2\, \frac{g_{\rho }^{2}}
{m_{\rho }^{2}} \, (n_{p} - n_{n}) \quad .
\end{equation}
Thus, in neutron rich matter, the proton is more strongly bound than the
neutron. This difference of potentials serves as a threshold for
the $p \rightarrow n$ reaction as the mass difference of nucleons does for the
reaction in vacuum. It is, however, ignored in the
approximate formula \cite{br85}, which is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:brapc1}
R_{1}(k_{0} , \, |\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}|)
& \approx & 2 \, \pi \, \delta (k_{0} - \Delta)
\, \cdot \, {g_{V}}^{2} \  \eta _{pn} \\
\label{eq:brapc2}
R_{2}(k_{0} , \, |\overrightarrow{\bbox{k}}|)
& \approx & 2 \, \pi \, \delta (k_{0} - \Delta)
\, \cdot \, {g_{A}}^{2} \  \eta _{pn}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\eta _{pn} = \displaystyle{\int} \! \frac{2 \, d^{3} \! p}{(2\pi)^{3}}
\, f_{p}(p) [1 - f_{n}(p)]$.
Hence the structure functions in this approximation are  delta functions
placed at $k_{0} = \Delta \equiv M_{n} - M_{p}$.

With the potential difference taken into account, however, the
structure functions are shifted by $ - \Delta U^{pot}_{pn}$, thus they
do not agree with the approximate ones even in the static and long wave length
limit with $M_{N}^{*} \rightarrow M_{N}$.
This is seen in Fig.~\ref{fig12}, where the structure functions for
the asymmetric matter ($Y_{p} = 0.3$)
are shown for the non-interacting case (the long dashed curve)
as well as the case with the
nucleon effective mass and potential alone included (the short dashed
curve) and the case with RPA also included (the solid curve).
In the non-interacting case, the structure functions are
located around $k_{0} \sim \Delta$, while in the other cases they are
moved toward the positive energy transfer as stated above.

The total $\nu _{e}$ emission rate is given for an outgoing neutrino
energy $E_{\nu }^{out}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:toteqc}
R^{tot}(E_{\nu }^{out}) & = & \int \! \frac{d^{3} q_{e}^{in}}
{(2 \pi )^{3}} \, \frac{1}{2 E_{e}^{in} \, 2 E_{\nu }^{out}} \
R(E_{e}^{in}, \, E_{\nu }^{out}, \, \cos \theta )
\  f_{e}(E_{e}^{in}) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{(2 \pi )^{3}} \, \int ^{\infty}_{0} \!
2 \pi k \, dk \, \int _{k_{0}^{-}}^{k_{0}^{+}} \! \! \! d k_{0} \
\frac{E_{\nu }^{out} + k_{0} }{E_{\nu }^{out}}
\frac{1}{2 E_{e}^{in} \, 2 E_{\nu }^{out}} \
R(E_{e}^{in}, \, E_{\nu }^{out}, \, \cos \theta )
\  f_{e}(E_{e}^{in})
\quad,
\end{eqnarray}
where $k_{0} ^{\pm} = \sqrt{m_{e}^{2} + (E_{\nu }^{out} \pm k)^{2}} -
E_{\nu }^{out}$. Inserting Eqs.~(\ref{eq:brapc1}), (\ref{eq:brapc2})
into the above equation,  we obtain the standard approximate formula:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:totapc}
R^{tot}(E_{\nu }^{out}) \ \approx \
\frac{G_{F}^{2}}{\pi } \  ({g_{V}}^{2} + \, 3 \, {g_{A}}^{2}) \  \eta _{pn}
\ (E_{\nu }^{out} + \Delta )^{2} \, \sqrt{1 -
\left (\frac{m_{e}}{E_{\nu }^{out} + \Delta } \right )^{2}} \
f_{e}(E_{\nu }^{out} + \Delta) \quad .
\end{equation}
For the symmetric nuclear matter, the density and temperature
dependence of the suppression factor of the total emission rates, that
is the ratio of Eq.~(\ref{eq:toteqc}) to Eq.~(\ref{eq:totapc}),
is essentially the same as that of the axial vector contribution to
the neutral current reaction. For the asymmetric matter, as understood from
Eq.~(\ref{eq:toteqc}), the $k$ integration has greater contribution
from larger momentum transfer due to the shift of the
structure functions, which tends to get the reaction rates larger
thanks to the larger phase volume. However, as $E_{\nu }^{out}$
comes closer to $\mu _{e}$, the electron population
starts to deplete $f_{e}(E_{e}^{in}) \lesssim 1$ and, as a result the emission rate
becomes smaller. This occurs for smaller $E_{\nu }^{out}$
in Eq.~(\ref{eq:toteqc}) than in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:totapc}) due to the large width of the structure
function. It follows that the total emission rate is greater
than the approximate one given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:totapc}) for
neutrinos with energy $E_{\nu }^{out} \ll \mu _{e}$ and smaller
for neutrinos with $E_{\nu }^{out} \lesssim \mu _{e}$. This is indicated in
Fig.~\ref{fig13}. Thus lower energy electron neutrinos are
produced more efficiently than predicted from the standard approximate
formula. It is also seen that the RPA correction
is not very large since the nuclear force becomes less repulsive for
the large momentum transfer considered here.

Fig.~\ref{fig14} displays the structure functions for a lower
temperature. It is evident that their widths became smaller. This is
because nucleons become more degenerate as the temperature is lowered
and the large energy transfer is required to overcome the difference
of chemical potentials between neutron and proton.
The comparison of Fig.~\ref{fig15}, which represents the emission
rates for the same temperature, with Fig.~\ref{fig13} shows that
the emission of high energy neutrinos is severely suppressed for the
low temperature, because it is contributed from the high
energy tail of degenerate electrons. It is also seen
from the figure that the approximate formula tends
to overestimate the Fermi blocking factor for the outgoing neutron by
neglecting the finite energy transfer, thus underestimating the
emission rate. The RPA correction is even smaller in this case, since
the narrow  structure functions favor higher momentum transfer.

As the density is increased or the proton fraction is decreased, the
potential difference becomes larger. Hence the features mentioned
above become more prominent, which is demonstrated in Figs.~\ref{fig16}
and \ref{fig17}. In the latter case, since the electron chemical
potential is also decreased, it is possible for small $Y_{p}$ and $T$
that the structure functions and the electron distribution function
in the integrand of Eq.~(\ref{eq:toteqc}) do not give a significant
overlap and the emissivity is strongly reduced. This is well known
suppression of the URCA process \cite{st83}.

The structure functions for the $n \rightarrow p$ reactions are derived from
those for the $p \rightarrow n$ reactions by using the
detailed balance relation expressed as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:baleq}
R^{(n, \, p)}(k) \ = \ e ^{\beta (k_{0} - \Delta \mu _{pn})}
\ R^{(p, \, n)}(-k) \quad ,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta \mu _{pn} = \mu _{p} - \mu _{n}$ is the difference of
the nucleon chemical potentials. In this paper, however, the $n
\rightarrow p$
structure functions were calculated in the same way as the $p
\rightarrow n$
counterparts, and we confirmed directly that the above relation is actually
satisfied.

As expected, the structure functions for the $n \rightarrow p$ reactions
are shifted toward the negative energy
transfer due to the potential difference for  proton and neutron
in asymmetric matter, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig18}. The RPA
correction accounts for about half of the total suppression in this
case. The total emissivity
of $\overline{\nu }_{e} $ via $e^{+} + n \rightarrow \overline{\nu
}_{e} + p$ is
obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:toteqc}) with the following exchanges:
$p \leftrightarrow n$, $e \leftrightarrow e^{+}$ and $\nu _{e}
\leftrightarrow \overline{\nu }_{e}$. The important difference
from the $\nu _{e}$ case comes from the fact that positrons are not
degenerate in the supernova core. The shift of the structure
functions in the direction of the negative energy transfer gives greater
weights to positrons with lower energies which are more populated,
leading to larger emissivity of $\overline{\nu }_{e}$. On the other
hand, the RPA correction tends to reduce the rate as in the $\nu _{e}$
case. These trends are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig19}, where the
$\overline{\nu }_{e}$ emissivity is plotted as a function of the
energy of the emitted neutrino. The potential difference for
neutron and proton provides the emitted neutrino with certain
energy ($\sim 30$MeV in this case).
Although the correlation reduces the emissivity substantially,
the emissivity of high energy neutrinos are larger even after RPA
is included than for the approximate formula.

Thus far, we discussed the $\nu $ emissivities. The corresponding
absorption rates of $\nu _{e}$ via $\nu _{e} + n \rightarrow e + p$ and
$\overline{\nu }_{e} $ via $\overline{\nu }_{e} + p \rightarrow e^{+}
+ n$ are obtained by the detailed balance equation:
\begin{equation}
R^{tot}_{ab}(E_{\nu }) \ = \ e ^{\beta (E_{\nu } - \mu _{\nu } )} \
R^{tot}_{em}(E_{\nu }),
\end{equation}
where the neutrino chemical potential is defined as
$\mu _{\nu _{e}} \equiv \mu _{e} + \mu _{p} - \mu _{n}$ for $\nu _{e}$
and $\mu _{\overline{\nu }_{e}} = - \mu _{\nu _{e}}$ for $\overline {\nu }_{e}$.
This relation is easily proven from Eq.~(\ref{eq:baleq}).

\section{Conclusion}

In view of the application to supernova simulations
\cite{sy97,sy99}, we have calculated the
neutrino -- nucleon reaction rates in hot and dense supernova cores with the RPA
correlations taken into account. The approximations are based on the
Lagrangian used in  RMF for the nuclear EOS,
where the nonlinear $\sigma $ and $\omega $ meson terms are
included. This ensures the thermodynamic consistency in the static and long wave
length limit between the EOS we use in the supernova simulations and
the vector current correlation of nucleons which gives partial
contributions to the neutrino -- nucleon scattering rates. The same
method is extended to the axial vector current as well as to the isovector
current correlations with the residual interactions added which are
described by the tensor coupling of the $\rho $ meson and the
so-called Landau-Migdal parameters.

We have found that the neutral current reactions are suppressed
substantially in the high density regime, $\rho \gtrsim
10^{14}$g/cm$^{3}$, due to the repulsive nature of the nuclear
forces. In the lower density regime, however, the vector current contributions
are enhanced as the temperature is decreased and the boundary of the
gas phase, which is placed by RPA consistently with EOS,
is approached. Although this is interesting itself, the total
scattering rates are not enhanced significantly except for the very
vicinity of the critical point, since the axial vector
contribution is dominant over the vector current one and
is unaffected by the liquid -- gas phase transition.
We have also shown that the
neglection of the finite energy exchange between neutrino and
nucleon, which is assumed in the standard approximation formula,
can lead to a significant overestimation of the total reaction rates in
the high temperature regime where the typical incident neutrino energy
is no longer much smaller than the nucleon effective mass.

In the case of the charged current reactions, it is more important to
take proper account of the potential difference for neutron and
proton than to consider the RPA correlation, since it serves as a
threshold of the reaction just as a mass difference does in vacuum. In
fact, with the potential difference included the $\nu _{e}$ emissivity
via $e + p \rightarrow \nu _{e} + n$ is much smaller for
higher energy neutrinos than expected from the standard formula.
On the other hand, the emission of low energy antineutrinos via
$e^{+} + n \rightarrow \overline{\nu }_{e} + p$ is reduced.
In both cases, the RPA correlation
reduces the total rates further.

These modifications of the neutrino -- nucleon reaction rates could
have an important impact on the mechanism of collapse-driven
supernovae, since they are the dominant opacity sources for
neutrinos. The smaller opacity leads to the larger neutrino
luminosity, hence to the greater heating rate behind the stagnated
shock wave, which gives a better odds to get a successful
explosion. The changes of neutrino mean free paths, on the other hand,
could also affect the strength and region of convections in the proto
neutron star, which is one of the key ingredients to determine the
neutrino luminosity and energy. These issues will be discussed in
detail elsewhere \cite{ja99}.

It is clear that RPA does not include everything. As understood from
the fact that RPA is consistent with the mean field theory for the
equation of state, RPA studies the response of the mean field to the
external disturbance. The additional correlations might be
induced by some reactions such as collisions of two nucleons via spin and isospin
dependent reactions, as pointed out by some authors. Although these effects can in
principle be included in the above formulation by taking the corresponding
higher order corrections to the self-energy, it is extremely difficult
to achieve it in practice. In this paper we employed RPA respecting the
consistency between the calculated reaction rates and EOS we have
currently at our disposal. Nevertheless, these issues are remaining to be studied
further.

\acknowledgments

One of the authors (S.Y.) greatfully acknowledges critical discussions
with H.-Th. Janka and G. Raffelt. He would highly appreciate various
support by E. M\"{u}ller during his stay in Max Planck Institut
f\"{u}r Astrophysik. This work is partially supported by the
Grants-in-Aid for the Center-of-Excellence (COE) Research of
the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan to
RESCEU (No.07CE2002).


\section{INTRODUCTION}
In a series of previous papers \cite{mas0,mas1,mas2,mas3} we analyzed
charmonium hadroproduction in the light of the color-octet model
\cite{braaten}.
We employed a Monte Carlo generator (PYTHIA 5.7) \cite{pythia}
to assess the importance of
some higher-order QCD effects. As a consequence we concluded that
NRQCD matrix elements \cite{bodwin} determined from Tevatron experimental data
\cite{fermi1}  were considerably overestimated in other analysis
\cite{cho}, since they absorb some
perturbative effects, e.g. initial-state emission of
gluons. The latter gives rise to an effective transverse momentum,
enhancing the
high-$p_t$ tail of the differential distribution of charmonium.
Once taken into account, the extracted long-distance
parameters have to be lowered significantly. This is especially
apparent for the linear combination of matrix elements (MEs)
 $^1S_0^{(8)}+^3P_0^{(8)}$
where, in fact, a large discrepancy w.r.t. HERA results
on $J/\psi$ photoproduction has been pointed out \cite{hera}.\par
However, in our former work we did not consider
Altarelli-Parisi (AP) evolution of the fragmenting gluon into
charmonium for
the $^3S_1^{(8)}$ contribution at high $p_t$. In this paper we implement
such an effect benefitting from the evolution performed by
PYTHIA itself as will be explained below. We shall show
that although our previous numerical values for the
$^3S_1^{(8)}$ ME were somewhat low, no significant
change occurs for the corresponding $^1S_0^{(8)}+^3P_0^{(8)}$ ME.
We also discuss the sensitivity to the lower cut-off
used to avoid the singular $p_t{\rightarrow}0$ region.
We get started with the latter point in the following section.

\section{SENSITIVITY TO THE $p_t^{min}$ CUT-OFF}
Production cross sections which are singular at
$p_t=0$ are  automatically regularized in running PYTHIA
by setting a $p_t$ lower cut-off at 1 GeV \cite{pythia}.
Consistently with our aim of
using by-default options whenever possible in the generation, we
kept this value in all our previous analysis \cite{mas0,mas3}.
\par
In fact, the differential cross section can have a singular
behaviour at low $p_t$ even to next-to-leading order due to
imperfect cancellation of real and virtual
contributions. However, from a NLO calculation of charmonium
production by Mangano \cite{mangano}, one may
conclude that our previously used
lower cut-off ($p_t^{min}=1$ GeV) is consistent
with the threshold obtained by Mangano (${\approx}\ 1$ GeV for
the $^1S_0^{(8)}$ channel), such that the averaged cross section is zero
below this value.

Nevertheless, in order to assess the significance
of the cut-off on the values of the long-distance
parameters we performed new fits to
Tevatron data by changing $p_t^{min}$. We found that, by
varying $p_t^{min}$ in the $[1,2]$ GeV range, the $^3S_1^{(8)}$
ME showed almost no appreciable change, whereas
the $^1S_0^{(8)}+^3P_0^{(8)}$ ME changed by a
factor two at most \cite{seminar}.\par
Therefore, we keep in our subsequent analysis
the value  $p_t^{min}=1$ GeV as a self-consistent lower
cut-off.

\section{ALTARELLI-PARISI EVOLUTION}
At high transverse momentum, gluon fragmentation via the color
octet mechanism becomes the dominant source of charmonium
production. On the other hand, AP evolution of the
splitting gluon produces a depletion of its energy which has to be taken
into account. If not so, the long-distance parameter
for the  $^3S_1^{(8)}$ channel would be underestimated.
\par
In this work the AP evolution of the
fragmenting gluon was carried out from the evolution of
the gluonic partner of the $J/\psi$ in the final state
of the production channel
\begin{equation}
g\ g\ {\rightarrow}\ g^{\ast}({\rightarrow}J/\psi)\ g
\end{equation}
the technical reason being that the splitting gluon $g^{\ast}$
actually is not generated in our code \cite{mas2}. (Notice
however that the MEs used in the generation include the
long-distance evolution of the ($c\overline{c}$) bound state
\cite{mas2}.)

Indeed, on the average the fragmenting gluon should evolve in the
transverse plane similarly to the other final-state gluon in (1),
once corrected its virtuality  to become of the order of the
charmonium mass.

Thereby we get a correcting factor to be applied event by event
to the transverse momentum of the generated
$J/\psi$ (for the $^3S_1^{(8)}$ channel only):
\begin{equation}
x_p\ =\ \frac{\sqrt{P_t^{{\ast}2}+m_{J/\psi}^2}}
{\sqrt{P_t^{2}+m_{J/\psi}^2}}
\end{equation}
where $P_t$ ($P_t^{\ast}$) is the transverse momentum of
the final-state gluon without (with) AP evolution.

At high $p_t$,
\begin{equation}
 p_t^{AP}\ =\ x_p\ {\times}\ p_t
\end{equation}
where $p_t$ is the transverse momentum of the $J/\psi$
as generated by PYTHIA (i.e. without AP evolution).\par
Although the above way to implement AP evolution may be
somewhat indirect, it remains in the spirit of our whole
analysis, i.e. using PYTHIA algorithms whenever possible. In fact it
provides an energy depletion of the fragmenting gluon
in accordance with Cho and Leibovich's work \cite{cho}.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=jpsi18_cte_ap.eps,height=6.5cm,width=7.5cm}}\end{center}
\caption{Curves obtained from PYTHIA for $J/\psi$ production
at the Tevatron, including AP evolution and
initial-state radiation on for the CTEQ 2L parton distribution function.
The charm mass was set equal to $1.48$ GeV.
(i) dotted line: Color-singlet model, (ii) dashed line:
$^1S_0^{(8)}+^3P_0^{(8)}$, (iii) dot-dashed line: $^3S_1^{(8)}$,
(iv) solid line: all contributions.}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=jpsi14_cte_nap.eps,height=6.5cm,width=7.5cm}}
\end{center}
\caption{Curves obtained from PYTHIA for $J/\psi$ production at
the LHC, without AP evolution and
initial-state radiation on for the CTEQ 2L parton distribution function.
(i) dotted line: Color-singlet model, (ii) dashed line:
$^1S_0^{(8)}+^3P_0^{(8)}$, (iii) dot-dashed line: $^3S_1^{(8)}$,
(iv) solid line: all contributions.}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=jpsi14_cte_ap.eps,height=6.5cm,width=7.5cm}}
\end{center}
\caption{Curves obtained from PYTHIA for $J/\psi$ production
at the LHC, including AP evolution and
initial-state radiation on for the CTEQ 2L parton distribution function.
(i) dotted line: Color-singlet model, (ii) dashed line:
$^1S_0^{(8)}+^3P_0^{(8)}$, (iii) dot-dashed line: $^3S_1^{(8)}$,
(iv) solid line: all contributions.}
\end{figure}

\section{NEW EXTRACTION OF COLOR-OCTET MEs}
We have performed new fits to the Tevatron data \cite{fermi1}
using three PDFs (as in \cite{mas2}) but now
with AP evolution implemented in the generation as described in the
preceding section. In table 1 we show the numerical values for
 $<O_8(^3S_1)>$ and the linear combination
$M_3=3{\times}(\frac{<O_8(^3P_0)>}{m_c^2}+
\frac{<O_8(^1S_0)>}{3})$ obtained in our analysis.
The new values for the  $<O_8(^3S_1)>$
matrix elements have been increased by a factor about 3 w.r.t.
AP off \cite{mas2}. Conversely
the $M_3$ value is slightly decreased, moreover remaining quite
smaller than in other analysis \cite{cho}. Therefore we conclude that
the $M_3$ value obtained in our work is reliable and in a
better agreement with HERA results on $J/\psi$ photoproduction \cite{kniehl}.

\begin{table*}[hbt]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5pc}
\caption{Color-octet matrix elements (in units of $10^{-3}$ GeV$^3$) from
the best fit to Tevatron data on direct $J/\psi$ production
for different PDFs. Initial-state radiation of gluons and AP evolution as
explained in the text were
swichted on. For
comparison we quote the values given by Cho and Leibovich:
$(6.6{\pm}2.1)$ and $(66{\pm}15)$
respectively.}
\label{FACTORES}

\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}    \hline
ME:  & $<O_8(^3S_1)>$ &
$M_3=3{\times}\biggl(\frac{<O_8(^3P_0)>}{m_c^2}+
\frac{<O_8(^1S_0)>}{3}\biggr)$ \\
\hline

CTEQ2L & $9.6{\pm}1.5$ & $13.2{\pm}2.1$ \\
MRSD0 & $6.8{\pm}1.6$ & $13.2{\pm}2.1$ \\
GRVHO& $9.2{\pm}1.1$ & $4.5{\pm}0.9$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}

\section{$J/\psi$ DIRECT PRODUCTION RATE AT THE LHC}
In order to get an estimate of the expected charmonium
production rate at the LHC, we ran PYTHIA with the color-octet
model implemented in. In figure 3 we show the predicted
differential cross section times the muonic branching fraction
of $J/\psi$ with AP evolution included. In figure 2 we show
the same curve with AP off. By comparison, one may conclude that,
once adjusted
the long-distance parameters to fit Tevatron data, there is no
significant difference between both generations.\par
Let us stress that because of theoretical uncertainties
associated to different choices for the charm mass, energy scales,
parton distribution function ...,
the theoretical curves of figures 2 and 3
 have to be considered as order-of-magnitude
predictions. Nevertheless the relatively high production rate
at high-$p_t$ (of the order of the pb at $p_t=50$ GeV) makes especially
interesting the analysis of charmonia production at the LHC. A
preliminary study on $\Upsilon(1S)$ prompt production
leads to a similar conclusion for the bottomonia family.

\section{CONCLUSIONS}
After checking our analysis by varying the lower $p_t$ cut-off
set in the Monte Carlo generation to avoid the
problematic $p_t{\rightarrow}0$ region, we conclude that our
former choice $p_t^{min}=1$ GeV was justified and our
study of charmonium hadroproduction trustworthy.
On the other hand, once implemented Altarelli-Parisi
evolution in our framework, the  new extracted values of
the color-octet ME  $<O_8(^3S_1)>$ increase (table 1), recovering
a similar result as in previous extractions \cite{cho}. On the
other hand, the numerical values obtained for
$M_3$ even decrease slightly, reinforcing the conclusions reported in our
former work \cite{mas0,mas1,mas2,mas3}.

With respect to the extrapolation of the
$J/\psi$ production rate up to LHC energy, the theoretical
prediction incorporating AP evolution (figure 3) does not differ
significantly from the
curve obtained without AP evolution (figure 2). This means that, from
a practical point of view, there is no need to modify the code
for a fast generation as shown in \cite{mas2} if the corresponding
color-octet matrix elements are duly employed.
Finally we conclude that the analysis of charmonia (and bottomonia)
prompt production at the LHC deserves special attention in its own right.

\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}
I thank the LHC Workshop b-production subgroup for interesting
discussions and suggestions.
\thebibliography{REFERENCES}
\bibitem{mas0} M.A. Sanchis-Lozano and B. Cano-Coloma, Nucl. Phys. B
(Proc. Suppl.) 55A (1997) 277.
\bibitem{mas1} B. Cano-Coloma and M.A. Sanchis-Lozano, Phys. Lett. B 406
(1997) 232.
\bibitem{mas2} B. Cano-Coloma and M.A. Sanchis-Lozano, Nucl. Phys.  B 508
 (1997) 753.
\bibitem{mas3} M.A. Sanchis-Lozano, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 75B (1999)
191.
\bibitem{braaten} E. Braaten and S. Fleming, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74
(1995) 3327.
\bibitem{pythia} T. Sj\"{o}strand, Comp. Phys. Comm. 82 (1994) 74.
\bibitem{bodwin} G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, G.P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 51
(1995) 1125.
\bibitem{fermi1} CDF Collaboration, F. Abe at al., Phys. Rev. Lett.
69 (1992) 3704; 71 (1993) 2537; 75 (1995) 1451 ; 79 (1997) 578.
\bibitem{cho} P. Cho and A.K. Leibovich, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6203.
\bibitem{hera} M. Cacciari and M. Kr\"{a}mer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76
(1996) 4128.
\bibitem{mangano} M. Mangano, private communication.
\bibitem{seminar} M.A. Sanchis-Lozano, 2nd meeting of the b-production
working group, LHC99 Workshop, April 1999.
\bibitem{kniehl} B.A. Kniehl and G. Kramer, Eur. Phys. J. C 6 (1999) 493.

\end{document}

\begin{table*}[htb]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5pc}
\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
\caption{Color-octet matrix elements (in units of GeV$^3$) from
best fits to old and new
Tevatron data on prompt $J/\psi$ production.
($M_r^{J/\psi}=<0{\mid}O_8^{J/\psi}(^1S_0){\mid}0>\ +\
r{\cdot}<0{\mid}O_8^{J/\psi}(^3P_0){\mid}0>/m_c^2$.)
\hrule
}
\label{FACTORES}

\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}    \hline
NRQCD matrix element:  & $<0{\mid}O_8^{J/\psi}(^3S_1){\mid}0>$ &
$M_r^{J/\psi}$ \\
\hline

Ref. \cite{mas} (GRV, $r=3$): &$(3.4{\pm}0.4){\times}10^{-3}$&
$(6.0{\pm}1.2){\times}10^{-3}$ \\
Ref. \cite{kniehl} ($r=3.5$): & $(2.73{\pm}0.45){\times}10^{-3}$ &
$(5.72{\pm}1.84){\times}10^{-3}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}

\section{THEORETICAL UNCERTAINTIES}
	There is no space to review all the theoretical uncertainties
related to the extraction of matrix elements from charmonium
production which on the other hand have extensively been reviewed in
the literature (see for example \cite{schuler}). Let us only
mention:
\begin{itemize}
\item Ambiguities in the choice of energy scales, charm mass, PDF, ...
\item Partial breaking of the heavy-quark spin symmetry in charmonia
systems, ...
\item Subleading $O(>v^7)$ contributions, higher-order ${\alpha}_s$
effects, ...
\item Possible kinematic effects near boundaries of phase space
\item Possible effects due to the surrounding medium breaking universality
\end{itemize}
\par
Below we comment in some detail on the possible effects due to
the sensitivity to the kinematics of soft
gluon radiation in the long-distance evolution of the
$c\overline{c}$ pair into final charmonium \cite{beneke}.

\subsection{Finite width effects}
	Finite width effects can have consequences
as Ernstr\"{o}m, L\"{o}nnblad and V\"{a}nttinen discussed some time ago
\cite{vanti}. Indeed,
even a small energy difference (of order $Mv^2$) between the mass of final
charmonium and the invariant mass of the created $c\overline{c}$ pair
should have an effect on the (steep) momentum distribution. Nevertheless,
the point is that the formation of an intermediate colored $c\overline{c}$
state does not preclude the possibility of an energy deficit and not
necessarily an excess w.r.t. charmonium mass, the
latter implying the emission of soft gluons as usually considered. In other
words, the $c\overline{c}$ pair could get energy from the
surrounding medium.
\par
This viewpoint is in fact not surprising since in the color
evaporation model \cite{frit} based on duality arguments, the
cross section for charmonium production is written as an integral over the
$\hat{s}$ range $4m_c^2$ and $4m_D^2$ (i.e. the upper limit equal to open
charm production). However, charmonium production takes place in a $\lq\lq$hot"
medium as Hoyer pointed out in his talk (for more
details see Ref. \cite{hoyer}), so sub-thresholds effects likely should
have an influence. In the improved color evaporation model this means
that the heavy quark pair can get energy from the surrounding color field
to give open charm production beneath $\hat{s}=4m_D^2$ \cite{vogt}.
\par
Analogously in the COM, those dipole transitions occurring
during the evolution into final particles should be
associated to absorption of soft gluons from the neighborhood as well.
For example a $c\overline{c}[^3S_1^{(8)}]$ pair may absorb two
non-perturbative gluons
becoming a $O(v^2)$ Fock component of the $J/\psi$ state or may radiate
two soft gluons thus with nearly unity overlap with the $J/\psi$ wave function.
The conclusion is that on the average one should consider both
possibilities, likely decreasing the net impact of the above-mentioned
effect on the $p_t$ distribution.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfig{file=tres_jpsi_14.eps,height=6.5cm,width=8.cm}}\end{center}
\caption{Our predictions for $J/\psi$ direct production at the LHC
according to the color-octet model implemented in PYTHIA for the CTEQ
PDF [10]. Dotted line: CSM; dashed line:
$^1S_0^{(8)}+^3P_J^{(8)}$ contributions; dot-dash line: $^3S_1^{(8)}$
contribution; solid line: all contributions. Notice that asymptotically
the $^3S_1^{(8)}$ contribution becomes dominant, likely
implying a transverse polarization of charmonium at high $p_t$.}
\end{figure}

\section{LHC PREDICTIONS}
As outlined in the previous section, the extraction of NRQCD matrix
elements from charmonium
production is not yet fully satisfactory
due to several theoretical uncertainties. Still more analysis
has to be done to check the universality hypothesis allowing
comparisons between different production reactions. Polarization
of charmonium from gluon fragmentation at high $p_t$ might be decisive
to verify the validity of the COM \cite{beneke2}.\par
Nevertheless, under the assumption of the validity of the COM
to explain charmonia production, long-distance matrix elements obtained
from Tevatron data should parameterize those uncertainties to a large
extent. Therefore, in extrapolating to
LHC energies, predictions should be reliable if correctly
performed. In our case, this actually means running PYTHIA with the
same parameters and options (e.g. radiation on) as previously employed
in the fit to Tevatron experimental points.\par
In Figure 2 we show
our predictions for prompt $J/\psi$ direct production at the LHC
using the CTEQ PDF. A caveat is in order, however.
In changing the choice for the PDF there are noticeable changes on the
production rate by about $50\%$ in certain regions of $p_t$
(see Ref.\cite{mas}).

\par

\subsection{Muon cross sections from prompt $J/\psi$ production at
the LHC}
We have estimated the cross sections for events with
muons from prompt $J/\psi$'s, passing typical pseudorapidity
and transverse momentum cuts, foreseen in the first and
second level triggers for $B$ physics at the two LHC experiments
ATLAS and CMS. We shall denote as ${\mu}3$, ${\mu}6$
(${\mu}3{\mu}3$, ${\mu}6{\mu}3$) those events with at least one (two)
muon(s) whose $p_t$ is (are) larger than 3 GeV or 6 GeV, respectively.
\par
From our modified version of PYTHIA with the COM implemented in, we
obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma({\mu}3)\ =\  622 & nb & \nonumber \\
\sigma({\mu}6)\ =\ 52 & nb & \nonumber \\
\sigma({\mu}3{\mu3})\ =\  30 & nb & \nonumber \\
\sigma({\mu}6{\mu3})\ =\ 9 & nb & \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\par
In all cases an additional pseudorapidity cut ${\mid}{\eta}{\mid}<2.5$
for muons was required on generated events.\par
Those numbers should be useful to evaluate an order-of-magnitude
estimate of background sources
for the $B$ physics programme at LHC experiments, especially regarding
the search for CP violation via the golden decay mode
$B_d^0{\rightarrow}{J/\psi}K_s$.

\end{document}