\section{Introduction}
Nonlinear aspects of clusterization, one of the most mysterius
and important problem of modern nuclear physics,
are of interest due to the following reasons.

First, practically all nuclear processes which are related to
clustering lead to large reconstruction of an initial nuclear
system and this requires a development of new theoretical methods
to describe large amplitude collective motions.

Second, the existance of clusters is a very general phenomenon.
There are cluster objects
in subnuclear and macro physics.
Very different
theoretical methods were developed in these fields. However,
there are only few basic physical ideas, and most of methods
deal with nonlinear partial differential equations.

Third, methods of nonlinear dynamics give us possibility to derive
for nuclear physics unexpected collective modes,
which can not be obtained by traditional  methods of perturbation
theory near some equilibrium state.

The alpha decay is the most studied process
among the other possible
channels of fragmentations at low energies, such as
cluster radioactivity, cold fission and fusion\cite{SG89}.
As a rule these processes lead to a large mass transfer
up to the final channel. The existence of a central region
of a constant density and a well shaped
surface region makes it possible to describe a clusterization in
the region of nuclear surface
including the neck region\cite{kar93pn}.

The alpha decay and cluster radioactivity
indicate well the formation of a cluster on the surface
of a large nucleus\cite{SG89}.
Our nonlinear approach was formulated
in such a way to
describe the preformation
of such cluster\cite{LSG92ijmpe}.
Our model is
an extension of the Bohr-Mottelson
collective model\cite{EisGre},
which allows not only the nuclear deformations
which lead to collective vibrational and rotational motions, but
also the creation of bumps on nuclear surface.

Nuclear density falls considerably down in
a region of nuclear surface. This fact is very important due
to possibility of a clusterization and other fluctuations
of a nuclear density leading to instability in
a surface or a neck regions\cite{LSG92ijmpe},\cite{K93jpg}.
Recently\cite{KLSG96ijmpe} we suggested
an alternative nonlinear approach,
based on the currents and density algebra\cite{kar84}
to describe a surface interaction of
a nuclei with a cluster.
Starting from the hydrodinamic set of
equations and using an effective Skyrme interaction,
a nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation with fifth order
term in the nonlinearity ($NoSE3-5$)
has been deduced to describe in
a semiclassical limit an irrotational flux of
a nuclear density. In the framework of this approach
an approximate way to describe
surface axial symmetric interactions of a large target with
a small cluster has been derived.

\begin{figure}[h,t,b]
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=84mm]{figure1.ps}
\vspace*{-15mm}
\caption{\small Surface interaction of $^{208}\mathop{\mathrm{Pb}}\nolimits$ and $^{28}\mathop{\mathrm{Mg}}\nolimits$, as a superposition of
nonlinear waves of NoSE3-5}
\end{figure}
Figure~1 gives the density distributions for a surface
axial symmetric (along the $z$-axes) interaction
of a large target with a small cluster,
as  an interference of two
nonlinear solutions of NoSE3-5.
One can see the transition from well localized and separated
initial distribution to a complicated picture, when
the nucleus $^{28}\mathop{\mathrm{Mg}}\nolimits$ begins to be absorbed in the surface region.

Methods of nonlinear dynamics are
rather unusual for traditional nuclear theory.
Therefore it would be useful
to understand:
Why there exist nonlinear effects within linear
Schr\"odinger picture with a many-body nuclear hamiltonian?
Does there exist a way to obtain nonlinear evolution equations,
starting with traditional Hamilton or Lagrange picture?
How to classify possible types of solutions and to understand
their physical meaning?

Within this paper we shall try to clarify these points
aimed to consider simplest
large amplitude oscillations of nuclear density.

The paper first
presents in Sec.2 the basic scheme of our nonlinear approach to
nuclear hydrodynamics.
In Sec.3 it is shown how to reduce
a set of hydrodynamical equations to
a dimensionless nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation.
Properties of nonlinear stationary waves are investigated in Sec.4.
We give the answers to these three above
questions and present a short summary in the last section .

\section{Nonlinear approach to nuclear hydrodynamics}
Fluid dynamical concept\cite{madelung} of the nuclear medium is a
traditional way to classify collective modes. Hydrodymamics gives up
natural set of variables(collective currents and density) to describe
any collective excitations of nuclear density. At present there are
a lot of formulations of the nuclear hydrodynamical approach. We will follow
the way, which is based on the current and density operators
algebra\cite{kar93pn},\cite{kar84}

\subsection{General scheme}
For nuclear systems a usual second-quantized
form of a nonrelativistic theory is defined by introducing
canonically conjugated nucleon fields
$\Psi ({\vec{x}},\vec{\sigma},q)$, where
$(q)$ denotes ($n,p$) for neutrons and protons and
$\sigma = \pm$ the spin index,
which satisfy the equal-time
canonical anticommutation relations
\begin{equation}
\bigl\{ \Psi^{+}(1) , \Psi(2) \bigr\} _{+} = \delta(1-2),\qquad
\bigl\{ \Psi^{+}(1) , \Psi^{+}(2) \bigr\} _{+} =
\bigl\{ \Psi(1) , \Psi(2) \bigr\} _{+} = 0.
\label{scheme1}
\end{equation}
In terms of these operators a nonrelativistic
Hamiltonian could be defined
\begin{equation}
{\hat H}_{nucl} \bigl[ \Psi^{+}, \Psi;\; U_{nucl}(\vec{x}) \bigr]
\label{scheme2}
\end{equation}
with a general two-body nuclear interaction $U_{nucl}(\vec{x})$\\

The term "hydrodynamics" means that we will describe the dynamical
behavior of the nuclear system in a restricted space of collective variables
representing the density and the nucleon current of the system:
\begin{equation}
\Bigl( \Psi^{+}({\vec{x}}),\; \Psi({\vec{x}}) \bigr)
\Longrightarrow
\Bigl(  {\hat \rho} ({\vec x}),\;
{\hat j}_{k}({\vec x}) \Bigr)
\label{scheme3}
\end{equation}
where the index $k$ denotes the cartesian vector components.

The description of the evolution in terms of collective
currents (\ref{scheme3}) requires the of use commutation relations
between the collective current and density operators
\begin{equation}
[ {\hat \rho} (\vec{x}) , {\hat j}_{k}(\vec{y}) ],\quad
[ {\hat \rho} ({\vec{x}}) , {\hat \rho} ({\vec{y}}) ],\quad
[ {\hat j}_{k}(\vec{x}) , {\hat j}_{l}({\vec{y}}) ],
\label{scheme4}
\end{equation}
and their commutation
relations with the hamiltonian (\ref{scheme2})
\begin{equation}
{\partial {\hat \rho} (\vec{x})\over \partial t} = {1 \over i\hbar}
[ {\hat \rho} (\vec{x}) , {\hat H}_{nucl} ],\qquad
{\partial {\hat j}_{k} (\vec{x}) \over \partial t} = {1 \over i\hbar}
[ {\hat j}_{k}(\vec{x}) , {\hat H}_{nucl} ].
\label{scheme5}
\end{equation}
Commutation relations (\ref{scheme4},\ref{scheme5})
can be obtained by using the
initial commutation relations (\ref{scheme1}) for nucleon
quantum fields and the existing formal representation
for the kinetic energy density tensor operator
\begin{equation}
{\hat T}_{nk}({\vec{x}}) \equiv {\nabla_{n}}\Psi^{+}(
{\vec{x}})\cdot {\nabla_{k}}\Psi ({\vec{x}}) +
{\nabla_{k}}\Psi^{+}({\vec{x}})\cdot
{\nabla_{n}}\Psi ({\vec{x}})
\label{scheme6}
\end{equation}
in terms of collective currents
\begin{equation}
{\hat T}^{hyd}_{kl} = ( {\hat j}_{k}
{\hat \rho}^{-1} {\hat j}_{l} + {\hat j}_{l}
{\hat \rho}^{-1} {\hat j}_{k} ) +
{1 \over 2} {\hat \rho}^{-1}
{\nabla_{k}}{\hat \rho}\cdot {\nabla_{l}}{\hat \rho}
+ \mbox{const} \cdot \delta_{kl}
\label{scheme7}
\end{equation}
which satisfies Eqs.~(\ref{scheme5}) as well.

As a result one gets a collective hydrodynamical
hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
{\hat H}_{nucl} \bigl[ \Psi^{+};\; \Psi;\; U_{nucl}(\vec{x}) \bigr]
\Longrightarrow
{\hat H}_{hyd} \bigl[ \rho;\;\vec{j};\;
T^{hyd},\;{\mathfrak E}[\rho,\vec{j}] \bigr]
\label{scheme8}
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to the initial nuclear hamiltonian
(\ref{scheme2})
relative to the equations of motion (\ref{scheme5}).
Here ${\mathfrak E}[\rho,\vec{j}]$ denotes effective potential term.
We present the hamiltonian  only schematically aimed
to show the general scheme.

It is convenient to use Skyrme interaction,
which gives an ansatz for an effective hamiltonian
${\hat H}_{hyd}  \Longrightarrow \int {\d}^{3}x \/{\hat H} ({\vec x})$
 of a local operator in terms of densities and currents\cite{}
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
{\hat H} ({\vec x}) &=& (\hbar^{2}/{2m}) \tau + B_{1}\rho^{2} +
B_{2}(\rho_{n}^{2}+\rho_{p}^{2})+B_{3}(\rho\tau-\vec{j}^{2})\\ \nonumber
&+&B_{4}(\rho_{n}\tau_{n}-\vec{j}_{n}^{2}+
\rho_{p}\tau_{p}-\vec{j}_{p}^{2})+B_{5}\rho\Delta\rho+
B_{6}(\rho_{n}\Delta\rho_{n}+\rho_{p}\Delta\rho_{p})\\ \nonumber
&+&B_{7}\rho^{2+\alpha}
+B_{8}\rho^{\alpha}(\rho_{n}^{2}+\rho_{p}^{2}) +
B_{9}(\rho\nabla\cdot\vec{\Xi}+\vec{j}\cdot\nabla\times\vec{\Sigma}\cr
&+&
\rho_{n}\nabla\cdot\vec{\Xi}_{n}+\vec{j}_{n}\cdot\nabla\times\vec{\Sigma}_{n}
+\rho_{p}\nabla\cdot\vec{\Xi}_{p}+
\vec{j}_{p}\cdot\nabla\times\vec{\Sigma}_{p})\\
&+&B_{10}\vec{\Sigma}^{2}+B_{11}(\vec{\Sigma}_{n}^{2}+\vec{\Sigma}_{p}^{2})
+B_{12}\rho^{\alpha}\vec{\Sigma}^{2}+B_{13}\rho^{\alpha}
(\vec{\Sigma}_{n}^{2}+\vec{\Sigma}_{p}^{2}),
\label{ham1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the numerical coefficients $B_{i}$ and $\alpha$ are parameters
of a Skyrme interaction\cite{bfh87}.

To describe a system of nonrelativistic spin-1/2 nucleons in terms
of currents requires
to decompose spin-isospin density tensors
to spin-scalar
\begin{equation}
\rho_{q}(\vec{x}) \equiv \sum_{\sigma} \Psi^{+} ({\vec{x}},\sigma,q)
\Psi (\vec{x},\sigma,q)
\label{s1}
\end{equation}
and spin-vector densities
\begin{equation}
\vec{\Sigma}_{q}(\vec{x}) \equiv \sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}
\Psi^{+} (\vec{x},\sigma,q)
<\sigma |\vec\sigma|\sigma'> \Psi (\vec{x},\sigma',q).
\label{s2}
\end{equation}
The related currents are the spin-scalar
\begin{equation}
j_{k}({\vec x})_{q} = {1\over 2i} \sum_{\sigma}\Bigl( \Psi^{+}(
{\vec{x}},\sigma,q) {\nabla_{k}}
\Psi ({\vec{x}},\sigma,q) - {\nabla_{k}}
\Psi^{+}({\vec{x}},\sigma,q)\cdot\Psi ({\vec{x},\sigma,q}) \Bigr),
\label{s3}
\end{equation}
and spin-orbital ones
\begin{eqnarray}
\Xi_{k}({\vec x})_{q} &=& {1\over 2i} \sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}
\sum_{m,n=1}^{3} \varepsilon_{kmn}\Bigl( \Psi^{+}(
{\vec{x}},\sigma,q) {\nabla_{m}}
\Psi ({\vec{x}},\sigma',q) \\ \nonumber
&-& {\nabla_{m}}
\Psi^{+}({\vec{x}},\sigma,q)\Psi ({\vec{x},\sigma',q}) \Bigr)
<\sigma|\sigma_{n}|\sigma'>.
\label{s4}
\end{eqnarray}

Among all components of the kinetic-energy-spin-tensor the most
important ones are the scalars in spin and in the ordinary coordinate space
\begin{equation}
\tau_{q},\quad \vec{j}_{q}^{2},\quad \vec{\Sigma}_{q}^{2},\quad
\nabla\cdot\vec{\Xi}_{q},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tau =  \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k} T_{kk} =
 \sum_{k}{\hat j}_{k}
{\hat \rho}^{-1} {\hat j}_{k} +
{1 \over 4} {\hat \rho}^{-1}
{\nabla_{k}} {\hat \rho} {\nabla_{k}} {\hat \rho}.
\label{s5}
\end{equation}

It should be noted that the operators (\ref{s4}-\ref{s5})
is not the complete set of
spin-isospin tensor components of
the current-spin-tensor and
kinetic-energy-spin-tensor.
The detail analysis of the equation of motion (\ref{scheme5})
for all defined densities and currents could help to clarify the situation.
First of all it is necessary to define the effective hamiltonian.

In order to analyze the evolution equations (\ref{scheme5})
with the effective
hydrodynamical hamiltonian (\ref{ham1}) it is necessary: first
to derive commutation relations between all
components of spin-isospin current and density tensors, and their
commutation relations of with all terms of hamiltonian (\ref{ham1})
and second
 to provide tensor decomposition of all currents to
irreducible cartesian components aimed to separate irrotational and
rotational terms.

This task is rather difficult. However,
in the framework of presented above general quantum hydrodynamics,
one could build, in principle,
a quantum approach to investigate spin-scalar,
spin-vector, spin-orbital vibrational and rotational modes
in nuclei. Such investigations are in progress.

\section{Nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation}
In order to check the possibilities of our approach
we simplify
the hamiltonian (\ref{ham1}) aimed
to describe different
oscillations of isoscalar nuclear density.
We assume a
system of spinless and isospinless nucleons
with no Coulomb, spin and spin-orbital effects ($W_{0}=0$)
and effective Skyrme forces (\ref{ham1}) ($\alpha = 1$)
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
H ({\vec x}) &=&
\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m} \tau + \frac{3}{8} t_{0}\rho^{2} +
\frac{1}{16} t_{3} \rho^{3} +
)+ \frac{1}{64}(9 t_{1}-5t_{2}) |\nabla\rho |^{2} \\
&+& \frac{1}{8}(3 t_{1}+5t_{2}) (\{\rho,\tau\}_{+} -
2\vec{j}^{2}.
\label{hmod0}
\end{eqnarray}

Schematic "nonlinear density and current dependence"
of kinetic energy is
\begin{equation}
H ({\vec x}) \Longrightarrow  H_{mod}({\vec x}) =
\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m^{*}} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{3} j_{k}\frac{1}{\rho}j_{k}
+ \frac{\hbar ^{2}\eta^{2}}{8m^{*}}\frac{|\nabla\rho|^{2}}{\rho}
+ \frac{3}{8} t_{0}\rho^{2} +
\frac{1}{16} t_{3} \rho^{3} ,
\label{hmod1}
\end{equation}
where the following renormalization is used
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
m &\Longrightarrow& m^{*} \equiv (m^{-1} + (3t_{1} + 5t_{2})
\rho _{N}/8\hbar ^{2})^{-1},\\
{\hbar ^{2} \over 8m} &\Longrightarrow& {\hbar ^{2}\eta^{2} \over 8m} \equiv
{\hbar ^{2} \over 8m} + {\rho _{N} \over 64} (9t_{1} - 5t_{2}).
\label{hmod3}
\end{eqnarray}

$H_{mod}$ form Eq.~(\ref{hmod1}) is the simplest hamiltonian which includes
the "collective" kinetic energy,
"Weizs{\"a}cker" kinetic part which includes the
quantum and other gradient terms and the
"potential" energy, containing effective
two-body attractive term and three-body imitation of Pauli principle.\\

In classical hydrodynamics\cite{Lamb},
the fundamental variables are the local density
$\rho (\vec{x})$
and the fluid velocity
$\vec{v}(\vec{x})$
from which the  quantum current density can be defined by the
anticommutator\cite{geilikman}\footnote{See discussion on a velocity
concept in quantum hydrodynamics in a recent paper\cite{KGMG96}}
\begin{equation}
\hat{j}_{i}(\vec{x}) = {m \over 2\hbar} \{ {\hat \rho} (\vec{x}),
\hat{v}_{i}(\vec{x}) \}_{+}.
\label{ve0}
\end{equation}

Using the definition (\ref{ve0}) and the commutative relations between
density and current operators (\ref{scheme4}) one derives
velocity-density and velocity-velocity commutative relations
\begin{equation}
[ {\hat v}_{k}(\vec{x}), {\hat \rho} ({\vec{y}}) ],\qquad
[ {\hat \rho} ({\vec{x}}) , {\hat \rho} ({\vec{y}}) ],\qquad
[ {\hat v}_{i}(\vec{x}), {\hat v}_{j}(\vec{y}) ].
\label{ve1}
\end{equation}

To classify the type of motions in the cartesian coordinate space
it would  be
convenient to provide tensor decomposition  of
the operator vector field
\begin{equation}
\hat{v}_{k}(\vec{x}) =
\nabla_{k}\hat{\Phi}_{pot}(\vec{x})  + curl_{k}(\hat{\vec{A}}),\qquad
div(\hat{\vec{A}}) = 0,
\label{helm1}
\end{equation}
into a sum of potential
$(\hat{\Phi}_{pot}(\vec{x}))$ and solenoidal
$(\hat{\vec{A}})$ fields
by using the Helmholtz theorem (see, e.g., ref.\cite{morsfesh} vol.~1).

In the following we shall
consider the equations of motion (\ref{scheme5}) with the hamiltonian
$H_{mod}$ (\ref{hmod1}). First
it is convenient to use the scale
transformations~\cite{kar84}
\begin{equation}
\vec{x} \equiv ( \hbar \eta / m^{*} c_{s} ) \/ \vec{x}^{'}, \qquad
t \equiv (m^{*} c_{s}^{2} / \hbar) \/ \tau,
\label{scale1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
v_{k} (\vec {x}) = c_{s} U_{k}(\vec{x}'),\qquad
\rho (\vec{x}, t) \equiv \rho _{N} \/ n ^{2} (\vec{x}', \tau).
\label{scale2}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $ c_{s} $ is the sound velocity in nuclear matter
\begin{equation}
c_{s} \equiv \bigl( {1 \over m^{*}} \rho ^{2} {\delta ^{2}
({\mathfrak E} / \rho ) \over \delta \rho ^{2} } \vert _{\rho =\rho_{N}} \bigr)
^{1/2}
\label{scale3}
\end{equation}
The scale transformation (\ref{scale1},\ref{scale2}) makes it possible
to separate the general effects related to
nonlinearity in the hamiltonian (\ref{hmod1}) (a polinomial in
density) from effects related to a choice of parameters of interaction,
which define only scales factors: effective length wave
($\hbar \eta / m^{*} c_{s}$ ), the density of nuclear matter $\rho_{N}$,
the sound velocity in nuclear matter $c_{s}$ and the time factor
($m^{*} c_{s}^{2} / \hbar$).

Hamiltonian (\ref{hmod1}) can be cast in the following form
\begin{equation}
H_{mod} = \rho_{N} \left(\frac{\hbar\eta}{m^{*}c_{s}}\right)^{3}
m^{*}c_{s}^{2}
\int {\d}^{3}x' \left( \sum\limits_{k=1}^{3} \frac{U_{k} n U_{k}}{2}
+ \frac{|\nabla n|^{2}}{8n} - n^{2} +
\frac{1}{2}n^{3} \right).
\label{hmod2}
\end{equation}
Now the continuity and Euler operator equations (\ref{scheme5})
can be reduced to the following set of
the  dimensionless equations of motion
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial n (\vec {x}')}{\partial\tau} = -\frac{1}{2}
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{3}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{k}'} \{ {n (\vec {x}'),
U_{k} (\vec {x}')}\}_{+},
\label{scale4}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\frac{\partial U_{k} (\vec {x}')}{\partial\tau}  &=& \frac{1}{2}\left(
\left( \vec {U}\times curl \vec {U}\right)_{k} -
\left( curl \vec {U}\times \vec {U}\right)_{k}\right)\\
 &-& \frac{1}{2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{k}'}\left( \vec {U}^{2} +
\frac{\Delta n}{2n} - \frac{|\nabla n |^{2}}{4n^{2}}
- 4 n (\vec {x}') + 3 n^{2} (\vec {x}') \right).
\label{scale5}
\end{eqnarray}

Taking into account the velocity-velocity and
velocity-density commutative relations (\ref{ve0}-\ref{ve1})
and the operator Helmholtz theorem (\ref{helm1}) we obtain
the following decomposition of the dimensionless velocity operator:
\begin{equation}
{\hat U}_{k}(\vec{x}) = \frac{\partial{\hat\Phi}(\vec{x})}{\partial x_{k}}
+ {\hat R}_{k}(\vec{x}),\qquad div\vec{R}=0,\qquad
\vec{\hat\zeta} = curl\vec{\hat{R}},
\label{scale6}
\end{equation}
into potential and pure rotational currents.

Considering only the vibrational type of motion and neglecting
their possible
connection with rotational modes ($\vec{\hat\zeta}=0,\, {\hat R}_{k} \to 0$)
the commutation relations between density and potential velocity  are reduced
to the canonical boson form
\begin{equation}
[ \hat{n}(\vec{x}), \hat\Phi(\vec{y}) ] = i \delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y}),\qquad
[ \hat\Phi(\vec{x}), \hat\Phi(\vec{y}) ] = 0,\qquad
[ {\hat n} ({\vec{x}}) , {\hat n} ({\vec{y}}) ] = 0,
\label{scale7}
\end{equation}
which give it possible to treat (if it is no  rotation ($ R_{k}=0 $))
the evolution via $ H_{mod} $ as nonlinear operator anharmonical picture.

In the semiclassical limit the two hydrodynamical equations of motion
(\ref{scale4},\ref{scale5})
in the case of irrotational flow
(\ref{scale6},\ref{scale7})
 can be cast in the form of
one nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{equation}
i {\psi_\tau} = -\Delta
\psi - 4 \mid \psi \mid ^{2} \/ \psi +
3 \mid \psi \mid ^{4} \/ \psi
\label{nls00}
\end{equation}
for a complex function $\psi$
\begin{equation}
n(\vec{x},\tau) = \mid \psi(\vec{x},\tau) \mid ^{2},\qquad
\Phi(\vec{x},\tau) = \arg \psi(\vec{x},\tau).
\label{nls000}
\end{equation}
Eqs.~(\ref{nls00},\ref{nls000}) become transparent if we recall
the well-known formal analogy of quantum mechanics to
fluid mechanics\cite{madelung}. However one should keep in mind
that in formulaes (\ref{nls00},\ref{nls000}) all variables are
collective ones and the effective potential is defined by a first
functional derivative of effective interaction on density.

\section{The one-dimensional nonlinear waves}
Let us consider the
stationary (travelling) solutions
of the one-dimension (in the cartesian coordinate
space)
nonlinear Schr{\"o}dinger equation (\ref{nls00}).
These solutions take the usual form
\begin{equation}
\psi(r, \tau) \equiv \psi(x)
\exp \bigl( i(\lambda - v^{2} / 2) \tau + i xv + \sigma _{0})
\label{nls02}
\end{equation}
where $r = x - v\tau - r_{0}$.
The parameters  $r_{0}, \sigma _{0}, v$
are the initial position of the center of the wave,
the initial phase shift and the initial velocity.

The function  $\psi(x)$  is the solution of the nonlinear
Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{equation}
\psi_{xx} - \lambda \psi + 4  \psi^{3}
- 3  \psi^{5} = 0.
\label{nls04}
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[h,t,b]
\vspace*{15mm}
\includegraphics[width=90mm]{figure2.ps}
\caption{\small Dependence of "potential" $V(\psi)$ on $\psi$ and
and $\lambda$}
\vspace*{3mm}
\end{figure}

To analyze different solutions of Eq.~(\ref{nls04})
we will
exploit its simple mechanical analog, in which
a macroscopic point "particle" of unit mass is moving
under a conservative "force"
\begin{equation}
F(\psi) = \lambda \psi - 4  \psi^{3} + 3  \psi^{5} \equiv
- \frac{\partial V(\psi)}{\partial\psi},
\label{nls05}
\end{equation}
where the "potential" (see Figure~2) is taken as
\begin{equation}
V(\psi) = -\frac{\lambda}{2}\psi^{2} + \psi^{4} - \frac{1}{2}\psi^{6},
\label{nls06}
\end{equation}
with $\psi$ as a "particle position"
and $x$ its "time".

Eq.~(\ref{nls04}) after being multipled by $\psi_{x}$ ,
can be one time integrated. The result is
\begin{equation}
\psi_{x} = \pm \sqrt{2(E - V(\psi))},\qquad
E = V(\psi) + \frac{1}{2} \psi_{x}^2
\label{nls07}
\end{equation}
where the constant of integration ($E$) is
considered to be the  "energy".
Eq.~(\ref{nls07}) is just the energy conservation law in the
analog "particle" problem.
The parameter ($\lambda$) defines the "potential" profile
and the "energy"
( $E$ ) defines the "particle" motion.

Figure~2 gives a gross "potential" picture.
We show a detail set of "potentials" $V(\psi)$ for different
values of the parameter ($\lambda$ ) in Figs.~3 .
The "potential" $V(\psi)$ (\ref{nls06}) vanishes at the points
\begin{equation}
\psi = \{ 0,\quad \pm P_{1}=\pm\sqrt{1-\sqrt{1-\lambda}},\quad
\pm P_{2}=\pm\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1-\lambda}} \}
\label{nls08}
\end{equation}
(see Figure~3~($\lambda=0.5$)).

The equilibrium points of motion $F(\psi) =
-\partial V(\psi)/\partial\psi = 0$
are given by
\begin{equation}
\psi = \{ 0,\quad \pm P_{3}=\pm\sqrt{\frac{2-\sqrt{4-3\lambda}}{3}},
\quad
\pm P_{4}=\pm\sqrt{\frac{2+\sqrt{4-3\lambda}}{3}} \}
\label{nls09}
\end{equation}
(see Figs.3~($\lambda=0.9$)).
For an nonpositive $\lambda \leq 0$
a finite amplitude motion is possible only for
 $ 0 < E < V(P_{4}) $ and $ \vert \psi(0)\vert < P_{4} $
(see Figs.3~($\lambda=0.0$)).
For $ 0 < \lambda < 1$ there exist a finite amplitude motion
eith different types for the three regions of the "energy"
$\{ V(P_{3}) < E < 0, \; E=0, \; 0 < E < V(P_{4})\}$
(see Figs.3~($\lambda=0.5,0.9$)). This is the most interesting case
and in the following we will consider
it in detail.
For $ \lambda = 1$ the "barriers"
$ V(-P_{4}) = V(0) = V(P_{4}) = 0 $ (Figs.3~($\lambda=1.0$)).
A finite amplitude motion for  $ 1 \leq \lambda < 4/3$
is possible only for the negative "energy"
$  V(P_{3}) < E < 0 $ (Figs.3~($\lambda=1.1$)).
For $ \lambda > 4/3$ (see Figs.~3~($\lambda=1.5$))
any motion of a finite amplitude
is impossible. A "particle" comes away from the origin for any energy.

Eq.~(\ref{nls04}) is an ordinary differential equation of a second order.
For any set of initial values $\psi(x_{0}),\;\psi_{x}(x_{0})$ at initial
"time" $x_{0}$
one can obtain, in principle, the solution  of Eq.~(\ref{nls04})
numerically.
We will
restrict ourselves
only to stationary waves of a finite amplitude.
This means that for a given $ \lambda $  the "energy" is less than
the maximum "barrier" value ( $ E < V(\pm P_{4})) $.
Therefore it is convenient to select an "initial point" $x_{0}$, as
the point at "potential" profile in which
\begin{equation}
 E = V(\psi_{0}), \qquad \psi_{x}(x_{0}) = 0,\qquad \psi_{0} \equiv
\psi(x_{0}).
\label{nls16}
\end{equation}
Because of the "energy conservation" the $E$ parameter is related
to the wave amplitude $\psi(0)$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\vspace*{10mm}
\hspace*{-13mm}
\includegraphics[width=135mm]{figure3.ps}
\caption{\small Dependence of a "potential" $V(\psi)$ on $\psi$
for different parameters $\lambda$}
\end{figure}
A localized soliton like solution
is the nodeless solution of Eq.~(\ref{nls04})
under the following boundary condition
\begin{equation}
\psi(\infty) = \psi_{x}(\infty) = \psi_{x}(0) = 0.
\label{nls10}
\end{equation}
This corresponds to a special case with $ E=0 $.
Soliton like solution exists if $ 0<\lambda<1$.
A "particle" starts motion in the point $P_{1}$ or $-P_{1}$
(see Eq.~(\ref{nls08})) and comes to origin.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\hspace*{-7mm}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=85mm]{figure4.ps}
\vspace*{-18mm}
\caption{\small Soliton -like solutions of NoSE3-5 for
different values of the parameters $\lambda$}
\end{figure}

In Figures~4 we present the soliton like solutions for a few values
of the parameter ($\lambda$).
There exist an analytical form of this soliton like solution\cite{kar84}
\begin{equation}
\psi(x) = (\lambda/(1 + (1-\lambda)^{1/2}\cosh(2\lambda^{1/2}r))^{1/2}.
\label{nls11}
\end{equation}
which looks like a symmetrized Fermi-distribution
\begin{equation}
\psi(x) =\sqrt{\frac{
\sinh ({\mathfrak R}/{\mathfrak D})}{\cosh ({\mathfrak R}/{\mathfrak D})
+ \cosh (x/{\mathfrak D})}}
\label{nls12}
\end{equation}
where the "radius"
\begin{equation}
{\mathfrak R} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\lambda}} {\rm arctanh} (\sqrt{\lambda}).
\label{nls13}
\end{equation}
and the "diffuseness"
\begin{equation}
{\mathfrak D} =
\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\lambda}}
\label{nls14}
\end{equation}
are defined by the parameter ($\lambda$).\\
The parameter $\lambda$ is the chemical potential
defined by the "particle number"
\begin{equation}
N = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \d x \; \psi(x)^{2},\qquad
N = {\rm arctanh} (\sqrt{\lambda})
\label{nls03}
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\vspace*{35mm}
\hspace*{-10mm}
\includegraphics[width=135mm]{figure5.ps}
\vspace*{-20mm}
\caption{\small Set of stationary nonlinear waves of
 NoSE3-5}
\vspace*{-10mm}
\end{figure}

It is useful to note also the following features of this soliton like
solution. First for a small "particle number" the solution looks
like a solution
of a cubic nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation.
Second, for an intermediate and large "particle numbers"
 the "radius" (\ref{nls13}) is increased (see Figs.4).
Third,  there exist
an internal region of approximate constant "density" and
a "surface region" of a "constant" diffuseness
(see Eqs.~(\ref{nls13},\ref{nls14}) and Figs.4(c,d)).

In Figures~5 we present possible periodical and aperiodical solutions
of Eq.~(\ref{nls04}) for $ \lambda = 0.5 $.
The corresponding "potential" is represented in Figs.3~($\lambda=0.5$).
One can see small oscillations with a positive amplitude
in the "well" for ($V(P_{3})  < E < 0$) (Figs.5(a))
These oscillations became  distorted more and more, as
$ E \to 0-\epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is an infinite small
positive value (see Figs.5(b,c)).
For $E = 0$ we have the exact soliton like solution (Figs.5(d)).
There are nonlinear waves of positive and negative apmlitude, as
$ E \to V(P_{3})+\epsilon$, (see Figs.5(e,f)).
These waves look like quasi-trigonometrical functions (see
Figs.5(g)), as $\lambda$ changes from small positive values to
the "barrier" $V(P_{4})$.

Periodical waves  became distorted more and more, as
$ E \to V(P_{4})-\epsilon$.
In Figs.5(h,i) one can see a transition from
a well-defined periodical structure to an aperiodical one.

There is a region of semi "shock" wave with
the well  defined sharp "front" (see Figs.5(i)).
"Front" moves to the infinity
and, in this case, we have the constant solution in coordinate space
when an "energy" is equal to the "barrier" ($E = V(P_{4})$)
(see Fig.5(j)), describes a one-dimensional nuclear matter.

The above solutions were obtained numerically.
However it is possible to get also analytical solutions
for few special cases.
First it shoud be noted that it is possible to write a formal solution
of Eq.~(\ref{nls07})
\begin{equation}
\int_{\psi_{0}} \frac{{\psi} \,\d\psi}{\sqrt{2(E - V(\psi))}}= \pm
\int_{x_{0}}{x} \d x
\label{nls17}
\end{equation}
for any types of nonlinearity, i.e. for any "potential" $V(\psi)$.

In our case $V(\psi)$ is given by a symmetrical
polinomial of six order in $\psi$ (\ref{nls06}).
The substitution $Z \equiv \psi^{2}$ reduces
equation (\ref{nls04}) to the following form
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
Z_{x} &=& \pm 2 \sqrt{Z (2E + \lambda Z - 2Z^{2} + Z^{3})}\\
 &\equiv& \pm 2 \sqrt{Z (Z-Z_{1}) (Z-Z_{2}) (Z-Z_{3})}
\label{nls18}
\end{eqnarray}
The expression under the square root of the
Eq.~(\ref{nls18}) is a polinomial of fourth degree.
One of the roots is $Z=0$ the other three ones being defined by
$E,\; \lambda $ parameters.

The following solution of Eq.~(\ref{nls18}) exists also
in the case of $ E=0, \lambda=0$
\begin{equation}
\frac{\sqrt{Z (Z - 2)}}{2Z} = \pm 2x\qquad Z(x) = \frac{2}{1-4x^{2}}
\label{nls19}
\end{equation}
where the constants of integration are omitted. This solution has a pole
at $x = \pm 2$, and it does not describe a finite solution.

For very few special cases
Eq.~(\ref{nls18}) can be integrated analytically
in Jacobian elliptic
functions.
These functions are quite similar to the trigonometric
functions.
One can find in the book\cite{abramstegun}
the complete set of twelve different
Jacobian ellipic functions and the coresponding form of the differential
equation.
If it is possible
to reduce Eq.~(\ref{nls18}) by a linear transformation
$(Z, x) \to (z, u)$ to the one of these forms, then
the solution of (\ref{nls18})  can be cast as
the related Jacobi elliptic function.
The explicit form of the solution is determined by the constants
$\lambda, E$ and boundary conditions.

\section{Summary}
We give the following answers to the three questions
formulated in Introduction.

Nonlinear problems exist within a linear Schr\"odinger picture
with a many-body
nuclear hamiltonian as the result of the reduced description
in a restricted space of collective degrees of freedom.
In Sections 2 and 3 the way to derive the Nonlinear Schr\"odinger
equation for a collective motion is presented.
The logic of our approach corresponds to the logic
of any microscopic or semimicroscopic theory of collective
nuclear motion, namely,
one first selects a space of certain collective variables (\ref{scheme3})
 and their commutation relations (\ref{scheme4}). Then
seeks an expresssion for the collective Hamiltonian (\ref{scheme8})
 in terms of
the chosen collective variables  to reproduce the commutation
relations (\ref{scheme5}) of the original many-particle Hamiltonian
and the collective operators.
The  hydrodynamical collective hamiltonian
 (\ref{scheme8}) is equivalent to the initial Hamiltonian (\ref{scheme2})
only with respect to
the equations of motion (\ref{scheme5})
for the collective
operators (\ref{scheme2}).
The present approach is the realization for nuclear physics
of the general problem how to formulate nonrelativistic quantum mechanics
in terms of collective current operators.
The currents (\ref{scheme3}) can be considered as fundamental
dynamical variables rather than  the underlying canonical fields
(\ref{scheme1}).
The main emphasis of this type of theory is the algebraic structure of the
equal-time current-current commutation relations (\ref{scheme4}).
The motivation for initiating such a program was due to
the fact that most of the interesting physical quantities
can be expressed in terms of currents and densities.
It is important for nuclear physics because the density and velocity
distributions are usual variables to analyse the dynamics of
heavy ion collisions (see the recent
papers\cite{KGMG96},\cite{LSG97jpg}
and the references therein).

In the present paper,
possible types of stationary nonlinear waves
in nuclear media are analyzed
in the framework of Nonlinear Schr\"odinger
equation of fifth order
and classified using a simple mechanical
picture.
It is shown that a rich spectrum of
nonlinear oscillations
in one-dimensional isoscalar nuclear matter exist.


\section{Introduction}

The Si and Ge clathrates can be viewed as covalent fullerene solids which is
composed of three-dimensional networks of fullerene cages connected by face
sharing. The silicon clathrate compounds M$_x$Si$_{46}$ and M$_x$Si$_{136}$
(M$=$Na, K, Rb, and Cs) were first synthesized in 1965 \cite{1}. The
structures of semiconductor clathrates can be classified into two cubic
structural types with 46 atoms or 136 atoms per unit cell \cite{1}. As shown
in Fig.1, the type I clathrate (Clathrate-46) is formed by two smaller
14-face pentagonal dodecahedra (12 five-fold rings, $I_h$) and six larger
16-face tetrakaidecahedra (12 five-fold rings and 2 six-fold rings, D$_{6d}$).
The structure of type II clathrate (Clathrate-136) consists of sixteen
smaller pentagonal dodecahedra (12 five-fold rings, $I_h$) and eight larger
hexakaidecahedra (12 five-fold rings and 4 six-fold rings, $T_d$). Electronic
structure calculations based on different methods have shown that these
two open network structures have similar electronic properties \cite{2,3}.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=3.0in \epsfbox{fig1.ps}
}
\caption{Atomic structure of fully-relaxed K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ clathrate.
Lattice constant of the simple cubic cell is 10.45 $\AA$.
}
\end{figure}

The research interests of semiconductor clathrates come from several aspects:
(1) possible alteration of electronic structures and energy gap from standard
diamond form \cite{2,3}, (2) metal-insulator transition in M$_x$Si$_{136}$
with different concentration of metallic impurity \cite{4,5}, (3) the
finding of superconductivity behavior in Na$_x$Ba$_y$Si$_{46}$ \cite{6},
(4) candidate for thermoelectric applications \cite{7}, (5) template to
from three dimensional arrays of nanosized clusters \cite{8}, (6) similarity in
structural and electronic properties between semiconductor clathrates and
nanoclusters \cite{9,10}.

There are lots of the experimental and theoretical studies on
Si$_{46}$ and Si$_{136}$ clathrates and their compounds
\cite{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21}. The structural,
electronic and vibrational properties of Si clathrates are investigated at
various theoretical levels ranging from {\em ab initio} \cite{2,9,11,12} to
tight-binding \cite{3,13} and empirical potential \cite{14}. The most
interesting result from those calculations is that the band gap is about
0.7 eV higher than that of diamond phase. Experimental works on Si clathrates
include resistivity and magnetization \cite{6}, transport properties \cite{7},
photoemission spectroscopy \cite{10}, NMR \cite{15,16,17}, Raman \cite{18,19},
ESR \cite{20}, neutron scattering \cite{21} etc.

In contrast to the intensive studies on silicon clathrates, our current
knowledge on germanium clathrates is rather limited. Recently, the germanium
clathrate compounds such as K$_8$Ge$_{46}$, Rb$_x$Ge$_{46}$,
Na$_x$Ge$_{136}$, Cs$_8$Na$_{16}$ have been synthesized and their structures
are analyzed with X-ray diffraction \cite{22,23}. An empirical potential
calculation has been performed on pure germanium clathrates
\cite{14}. However, there is no first principles electronic structure
calculation and their fundamental electronic properties are still unclear
theoretically. In this work, we report results of first principles study on
the structures and electronic properties of Ge$_{46}$ and K$_8$Ge$_{46}$
clathrates. The equilibrium structure, electronic band and band gap,
electronic density of states and electron density distribution are obtained
and discussed.

\section{Computational methods}

First principles SCF pseudopotential method \cite{24,25,26} is used to
perform static calculation on the electronic structures and total energy of
Ge$_{46}$ and K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ in ideal clathrate structures with different
lattice constants. The ion-electron interaction is modeled by numerical BHS
norm-conserving nonlocal pseudopotential \cite{27} in the Kleinman-Bylander
form \cite{28}. The Ceperley-Alder's exchange-correlation parameterized by
Perdew and Zunger is used for the LDA in our program \cite{29}.
The kinetic energy cutoff for plane-wave basis is chosen as 12
Ryd. Ten symmetric {\bf k} points generated in Monkhorst-Pack spirit
\cite{30} are employed to sample the Brillouin zone.

From the static calculation, the equation of states with ideal crystal
structures and the equilibrium lattice constants are obtained. These
ideal structures are further optimized by using structural
minimization via conjugate gradient technique (CASTEP \cite{31}).
The CASTEP program is based on plane-wave pseudopotential technique.
It can relax the atomic position by computing the force
acting on atoms from electronic calculation and moving atoms efficiently
in a numerical way \cite{25}.

\section{The structures and band gaps of {\mbox{Ge$_{46}$}}}

In Fig.2, we present the equation of states for both Ge$_{46}$ clathrate and
diamond phase that is obtained from first principles static calculations.
We find that the Ge$_{46}$ clathrate is a locally stable structure and its
energy is only about 0.08 eV per atom higher than that of diamond phase. For
comparison, the $\beta$-tin phase of germanium is about 0.25 eV higher in
energy than the diamond phase \cite{24}. The low energy feature of clathrate
phase is a natural consequence of its four coordinate characteristics and may
be partially attributed to the softness of the bond-bending distortion modes
\cite{9}. As compared to diamond structure, the volume per atom in the
clathrate phase is increased by about 14.8$\%$. All of these results are very
close to the previous empirical potential simulation on Ge$_{46}$, in which
the change of atomic volume in type I clathrate is 15.3 $\%$ and its energy is
0.071 eV per atom higher than diamond \cite{14}.

\begin{table}
Table I The structural properties and band gaps of perfect and relaxed
clathrate compared with previous LDA local orbital (LDA-LO) and
tight-binding molecular dynamics (TBMD) calculation on Si$_{46}$ clathrate.
V/V$_0$ is the reduced atomic volume. $l$ denotes the Ge$-$Ge bond length.
$a$ is the equilibrium lattice constant. $E_g$ is the electronic band gap
(indirect gap for both diamond and clathrates). The numbers in brackets are
experimental values \cite{33,22}.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l}
                          & V/V$_0$ & $l$ (\AA) & $a$ (\AA)      & $E_g$ (eV) \\ \hline
Ge Diamond                & 1.00    & 2.407             & 5.56 (5.66)  & 0.40 \\
Ge$_{46}$ (ideal)         & 1.148   & 2.375, 2.540  & 10.43        &  1.25         \\
Ge$_{46}$ (relaxed)       & 1.128   & 2.380 $\sim$ 2.433     & 10.37        &  1.46    \\
K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ (ideal)    & 1.271   & 2.562,  2.739     & 10.79         &   --        \\
K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ (relaxed)  & 1.155   & 2.346 $\sim$ 2.492     & 10.45 (10.66) &   --   \\ \hline
Si$_{46}$ (LDA-LO)\cite{2}& 1.17    &  2.38 $\sim$ 2.43      & 10.35         &  2.50 \\
Si$_{46}$ (TBMD)\cite{3}  & 1.14    &  2.367            & 10.20         &  1.82      \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

In previous theoretical study on bulk silicon and germanium of various phases
\cite{24}, considerable similarity in the bonding behavior and phase diagram
are found between silicon and germanium. In Table I, we summarize our results
on the structural properties and band gaps for perfect and relaxed Ge$_{46}$
and K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ clathrate and compare them with the previous LDA and
tight-binding calculations on Si$_{46}$ clathrate \cite{2,3,9}. We find the
difference of volume and energy between clathrate and diamond phase for
germanium and silicon are comparable.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=3.0in \epsfbox{fig2.eps}
}
\caption{Energy per atom of diamond and Ge$_{46}$ clathrate as a function of
atomic volume.
}
\end{figure}

The ideal clathrate structure for the Ge$_{46}$ at equilibrium lattice
constant is further optimized with CASTEP plane-wave pseudopotential
calculation. Both atomic positions and unit cell parameters are allowed to
relax. The SCF pseudopotential code used in static calculation has also
been used to test the total energy for the initial and final structure
and the results agree with CASTEP calculations. After optimization,
the lattice constant of simple cubic unit cell decreases from 10.43 $\AA$ to
10.37 $\AA$. The relative atomic positions are only slightly relaxed from their
initial configuration. The range of bond length distribution has also been
narrowed, i.e., from the 2.375 $\AA$ $\sim$ 2.540 $\AA$ in ideal clathrate
structure to 2.38 $\AA$ $\sim$ 2.433 $\AA$.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=3.0in \epsfbox{fig3a.eps}
}
(a)
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=3.0in \epsfbox{fig3b.eps}
}
(b)
\caption{Electronic band structure for (a) Ge$_{46}$, (b) K$_8$Ge$_{46}$
clathrate near Fermi level.}
\end{figure}

The electronic band structure calculations are carried out for Ge$_{46}$
clathrate with the equilibrium structure. The near band-gap band structures
for the minimum energy configurations of Ge$_{46}$ clathrates are plotted in
Fig.3(a). Both the valence band maximum and conduction band minimum are
located on the $\Gamma$ to $X$ line and they are very close in {\bf k} space.
An indirect gap of 1.46 eV is found. As for bulk germanium in diamond phase,
our calculations have yielded an indirect band gap of
0.40 eV between $L$ and $\Gamma$ points. The underestimation of band gap is a
common feature of LDA calculations. Nevertheless, our current results suggests
that the band gap of Ge$_{46}$ phase is about 1 eV higher than that of the
diamond phase, which is similar to the 0.7 eV increment in band gap
found for Si$_{46}$ and Si$_{34}$ clathrates \cite{2,3,9,10}. Furthermore,
the electronic band structure of Ge$_{46}$ clathrate are calculated
independently via a simple tight-binding model. The tight-binding hopping
parameters for germanium are taken from Ref.[32] and the parameters
for nearest neighboring atoms in clathrate structure is assumed to be the
same as that in diamond. According to tight-binding calculation, the band
gap of diamond is 1.13 eV and the gap for relaxed clathrate Ge$_{46}$ is
2.93 eV. Although the tight-binding method usually overestimate the band
gap of a system, the increment of 1.80 eV in the band gap from tight-binding
model is in reasonable agreement with {\em ab initio} calculation. Therefore,
we expect that the true increase of band gap $\Delta$ from diamond to Ge$_{46}$
clathrate phase might be between the LDA and TB prediction, i.e.,
1.06 eV $\leq$ $\Delta$ $\leq$ 1.80 eV. This result suggests that the clathrate
materials might be useful in the new electronic and optical application in the
future.

Since the Ge$_{46}$ clathrate structure is essentially a 3D network composed
by Ge$_{20}$ and Ge$_{24}$ cages with face sharing, it is interesting to
compare the electronic properties of the individual Ge$_{20}$ and Ge$_{24}$
cages with that of the clathrate. SCF pseudopotential electronic structure
calculations on isolated Ge$_{20}$ and Ge$_{24}$ clusters in fullerene cages
are performed. The clusters are placed in a large simple cubic supercell with
length of 28 a.u. In Fig.4, we present the calculated electronic density of
states (DOS) for Ge$_{20}$ and Ge$_{24}$ cages along with DOS for diamond and
Ge$_{46}$. The detailed analysis are given in the following.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=3.0in \epsfbox{fig4.eps}
}
\caption{Electronic density of states (DOS) of Ge$_{20}$, Ge$_{24}$
fullerene, bulk germanium in Ge$_{46}$ clathrate and diamond phases
Gaussian broadening of 0.136 eV is used.
}
\end{figure}

Firstly, we find that most of the peaks in the DOS of Ge$_{46}$ can be
assigned to Ge$_{24}$, while the DOS of Ge$_{20}$ also show some similarity
with Ge$_{46}$. The DOS of Ge$_{24}$ is closer to that of clathrate
because most atoms in clathrate are associated with Ge$_{24}$ cage.
The presence of s-p gap in due to the large number of five-member rings in the
cage and clathrate structure. This remarkable similarity implies that the
Ge$_{46}$ clathrate can be taken as the small Ge fullerene assembled solid with
both geometrical and electronic hierarchy. However, both the Ge$_{24}$ and
Ge$_{20}$ cages are not semiconductor systems and do not have open band gaps
like Ge$_{46}$ clathrates. The band splitting in Ge$_{46}$ can be attributed to
the sharing of face atoms by Ge$_{20}$ and Ge$_{24}$ and the interaction
between neighboring fullerene cages.

On the other hand, we can compare the DOS of clathrate and diamond in Fig.4.
Several significant differences can be found. Besides the improvement of band
gap in clathrate upon diamond phase, the total width of valence band of
Ge$_{46}$ (about 12 eV) is narrower than that of diamond (about 13 eV). This
phenomenon has been also predicted in Si$_{46}$ clathrate \cite{9} and observed
experimentally \cite{10}. We also found a gap opening between the s-like
and p-like states in the case of Ge$_{46}$ clathrates as well as Ge$_{20}$,
Ge$_{24}$ clusters, while $s$ and $p$ states are overlapped in the DOS of
diamond. These remarkable differences in the electronic structure of
clathrate and diamond can be understood by the large portion of five-fold
ring in clathrate structure. In the diamond lattice consisting of $100\%$
six-fold ring, the $4s$ orbital can form complete antibonding states, which can
distribute to high energy and overlap with the lower $4p$-like states.
In contrast to diamond, the Ge$_{46}$ clathrate is composed of $87\%$
five-fold rings and $13\%$ six-fold rings. In the five-fold ring, $4s$ orbital
cannot form complete antibonding states so that the top of $4s$-like states
is still lower in energy than the bottom of $4p$-like and a gap between $s$
and $p$ states inside valence band opens. The similar effect of five-fold
ring on the $4p$ bonding orbitals will induce the incompleteness of $4p$-like
states. As a consequence, the valence band top of Ge$_{46}$ is lower than that
of diamond, which corresponds to the narrowing of valence band width and
broadening of fundamental gap between valence and conduction band.
The novel electronic properties caused by five-fold ring and the similarity
between clathrate and fullerene cages may be explored for future
electronic and optical applications.

\section{Electronic structures of {\rm K$_8$Ge$_{46}$} clathrate}

Although the pure silicon and germanium semiconductor clathrates are predicted
to be locally stable, experiments have only synthesized the metal-doped
clathrate compounds of Si and Ge. The metallic impurity atoms inside the
clathrate might influence the electronic properties of clathrate due to the
interaction between the metal atoms and semiconductor skeleton.
Here we have chosen the K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ clathrate as such a model system to
study the doping effect on germanium clathrate.

\noindent
The structural properties of K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ are studied with the same procedure
we have applied on Ge$_{46}$ clathrate: a static calculation of equation of
states followed by a full relaxation. The minimized structure of
K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ clathrate is shown in Fig.1 and the structural parameters
of this minimum energy configuration is given in Table I. It is natural to
find that the lattice constant of cubic unit cell for K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ clathrate
is larger than pure Ge$_{46}$ clathrate in both ideal and relaxed structure
because of the K atoms inside the fullerene cage. We also find a
decrease of lattice constant from 10.79 $\AA$ to 10.45 $\AA$ after structure
minimization. The minimized lattice constant (10.45 $\AA$) for the
K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ is in good agreement with experimental value (10.66 $\AA$)
\cite{22}. During the minimization, the geometries of K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ relax
from the perfect clathrate network a little more than that happened in the
Ge$_{46}$.

First principles SCF pseudopotential electronic structure calculation
has been performed on the relaxed K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ clathrate. In Fig.3(b), we
presented the electronic band structure of K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ near Fermi level.
The system is found as metallic due to the K dopants. We can further examine
the highest valence bands and lowest
conduction bands of Ge$_{46}$ and K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ shown in Fig.3(a) and (b)
in detail. The valence bands of K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ are very closed to the
original bands in Ge$_{46}$, while the conduction band structures
have been slightly modified upon the inclusion of K atoms.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=3.0in \epsfbox{fig5.eps}
}
\caption{Electronic density of states (DOS) of Ge$_{46}$ and K$_8$Ge$_{46}$
clathrate. Gaussian broadening of 0.136 eV is used. Note the similarity in
the two DOS.
}
\end{figure}

We also study the difference of the electronic properties between
the pure and doped systems by comparing their the electronic density of
states (DOS). The density of states for Ge$_{46}$ and K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ clathrate
are compared in Fig.5. The DOS of valence electrons in K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ is very
close to that in Ge$_{46}$ while the DOS for conduction electrons of
K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ are somewhat different from that in Ge$_{46}$. On the other
hand, the gap between valence and conduction band is 0.23 eV narrower in the
case of K$_8$Ge$_{46}$.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=3.0in \epsfbox{fig6.eps}
}
\caption{Contour plots of the electron densities of K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ on the
(100) plane. No charge density is found at K site (marked by X), indicating
complete charge transfer.
}
\end{figure}

The analysis on the charge transfer and chemical bonding effects
have been presented in the contour plots of the electron densities of
K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ on the (100) plane in Fig.6. We have also
calculated the charge density distribution of Ge$_{46}$ and find it is very
close to that of K$_8$Ge$_{46}$. As shown in Fig.6, there is almost no charge
sitting on K sites.
This result is consistent with previous calculation on Na$_2$Ba$_6$Ge$_{46}$
\cite{9}, which found a rather simple charge transfer from Na to the Si skeleton.
In their calculation, some hybridization are found between Ba and Si since Ba
atoms has some low lying $5d$ orbitals \cite{9}. This difference also corresponds
to the DOS and other electronic properties. A high DOS peak at Fermi energy is
found for Na$_2$Ba$_6$Ge$_{46}$ \cite{9} and this material is superconducting
\cite{6}. In comparison, the DOS at Fermi level for K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ is moderate
and it is not superconducting.

\section{Conclusions}

We have used first principles SCF pseudopotential method to investigate
the structural and electronic properties of Ge$_{46}$ and K$_8$Ge$_{46}$
clathrates. The main conclusion of this work can be made as follows:

(1) Germanium clathrate Ge$_{46}$ is found to be a locally stable structure
with its energy only slight higher than that of diamond phase, and its atomic
volume is about 13$\%$ larger than diamond phase.

(2) Ge$_{46}$ clathrate shows an indirect band gap along $\Gamma$-$X$
direction that is about 1 eV higher than the band gap of diamond phase.
The pentagonal rings in the clathrate structure cause the valence band
structure of Ge$_{46}$ clathrate to be similar to that of Ge$_{24}$
fullerene cage. The open covalent network structures contribute to
the large band gaps.

(3) The K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ clathrate is metallic with a moderate density of
states. The valence band structures and DOS are similar to those of the
pure Ge$_{46}$, while the conduction bands are modified due to the K
dopants. Almost complete charge transfer from K sites to Ge frames is found
in the K$_8$Ge$_{46}$ clathrate.

\begin{acknowledgements}
This work is supported by the U.S. Army Research Office
(Grant DAAG55-98-1-0298) and Department of Energy (Grand DEFG02-96ER45560).
The authors thank O.Zhou for helpful
discussions. We acknowledge computational support from the
North Carolina Supercomputer Center.
\end{acknowledgements}

\vspace{0.5cm}


\section{#1}}
\newcommand{\vs}[1]{\rule[- #1 mm]{0mm}{#1 mm}}
\newcommand{\hs}[1]{\hspace{#1mm}}
\newcommand{\mb}[1]{\hs{5}\mbox{#1}\hs{5}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray}}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\end{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\wt}[1]{\widetilde{#1}}
\newcommand{\underline}[1]{\underline{#1}}
\newcommand{\ov}[1]{\overline{#1}}
\newcommand{\sm}[2]{\frac{\mbox{\footnotesize #1}\vs{-2}}
           {\vs{-2}\mbox{\footnotesize #2}}}
\newcommand{\partial}{\partial}
\newcommand{\epsilon}\newcommand{\p}[1]{(\ref{#1})}{\epsilon}\newcommand{\p}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\mbox{\rule{0.2mm}{2.8mm}\hspace{-1.5mm} R}}{\mbox{\rule{0.2mm}{2.8mm}\hspace{-1.5mm} R}}
\newcommand{Z\hspace{-2mm}Z}{Z\hspace{-2mm}Z}
\newcommand{{\cal D}}{{\cal D}}
\newcommand{{\cal G}}{{\cal G}}
\newcommand{{\cal K}}{{\cal K}}
\newcommand{{\cal W}}{{\cal W}}
\newcommand{\vec{J}}{\vec{J}}
\newcommand{\vec{\lambda}}{\vec{\lambda}}
\newcommand{\vec{\sigma}}{\vec{\sigma}}
\newcommand{\vec{\tau}}{\vec{\tau}}
\newcommand{\stackrel{\otimes}{,}}{\stackrel{\otimes}{,}}
\newcommand{\theta_{12}}{\theta_{12}}
\newcommand{\overline{\theta}_{12}}{\overline{\theta}_{12}}
\newcommand{{1\over z_{12}}}{{1\over z_{12}}}
\newcommand{{(1 + i\sqrt{3})\over 2}}{{(1 + i\sqrt{3})\over 2}}
\newcommand{{(1 - i\sqrt{3})\over 2}}{{(1 - i\sqrt{3})\over 2}}
\newcommand{\NP}[1]{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\PLB}[1]{Phys.\ Lett.\ {B \bf #1}}
\newcommand{\PLA}[1]{Phys.\ Lett.\ {A \bf #1}}
\newcommand{\NC}[1]{Nuovo Cimento {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\CMP}[1]{Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\PR}[1]{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\PRL}[1]{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\MPL}[1]{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\BLMS}[1]{Bull.\ London Math.\ Soc.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\IJMP}[1]{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\JMP}[1]{Jour.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\LMP}[1]{Lett.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\newpage
\setcounter{page}{0}
\pagestyle{empty}
\vs{12}
\begin{center}
{\LARGE {\bf Triality of Majorana-Weyl Spacetimes}}\\
{\LARGE {\bf with Different Signatures}}\\
[0.8cm]

\vs{10} {\large M.A. De Andrade$^{(a,b)}$, M. Rojas$^{(a)}$ and F.
Toppan$^{(a,c)}$} ~\\ \quad \\
 {\em {~$^{(a)}$} CBPF, DCP, Rua Dr. Xavier Sigaud
150, cep 22290-180 Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brazil}\\
~\quad \\
 {\em {~$~^{(b)}$} UCP, FT, Rua
Bar{\~{a}}o do Amazonas, 124, cep 25685-070, Petr\'{o}polis (RJ),
Brazil}\\ ~\quad\\ {\em ~$~^{(c)}$ UFES, CCE Depto de
F{\'{\i}}sica, Goiabeiras cep 29060-900, Vit\'oria (ES), Brazil}

\end{center}
\vs{6}

\centerline{ {\bf Abstract}}

\vs{6}

Majorana-Weyl spacetimes offer a rich algebraic setup and new types
of space-time dualities besides those discussed by Hull. The triality
automorphisms
of $Spin(8)$ act non-trivially on Majorana-Weyl representations and
Majorana-Weyl spacetimes with different signatures.
In particular relations exist among the
$(1+9)\leftrightarrow (5+5)\leftrightarrow (9+1)$ spacetimes,
as well as their transverse coordinates
spacetimes $(0+8)\leftrightarrow (4+4)\leftrightarrow (8+0)$.
Larger dimensional spacetimes such as
$(2+10)\leftrightarrow (6+6)\leftrightarrow (10+2)$
also show dualities induced by
triality. A precise three-languages dictionary is here given.
It furnishes the exact translations among, e.g., the three
different versions (one in each signature) of the ten-dimensional $N=1$
superstring and superYang-Mills theories. Their dualities close
the six-element permutation group $S_3$. Bilinear and trilinear
invariants allowing to formulate theories with a manifest
space-time symmetry are constructed.

\vs{6} \vfill \rightline{July 1999} \rightline{CBPF-NF-039/99}
\rightline{hep-th/xxx} {\em E-Mails:\\ 1) marco@cbpf.br\\ 2)
mrojas@cbpf.br \\
3) toppan@cbpf.br}
\newpage
\pagestyle{plain}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\vs{8}

\section{Introduction.}

Physical theories formulated in different-than-usual spacetimes
signatures have recently found increased attention. One of the
reasons can be traced to the conjectured $F$-theory \cite{Vafa}
which supposedly lives in $(2+10)$ dimensions \cite{Nish}.
The current interest in AdS theories motivated by the AdS/CFT
correspondence furnishes another motivation. Two-time physics
e.g. has started been explored by Bars and collaborators in a
series of papers \cite{Bars}. For another motivation we can also
recall that a fundamental theory is
expected to explain not only the spacetime dimensionality, but
even its signature (see \cite{Duff}). Quite recently Hull and
Hull-Khuri \cite{Hull} pointed out the existence of dualities
relating different compactifications of theories formulated in
different signatures. Such a result provides new insights to the
whole question of spacetime signatures.
Other papers (the most recent is \cite{Cori}) have remarked the
existence of space-time dualities.\par
Majorana-Weyl spacetimes (i.e. those supporting Majorana-Weyl
spinors) are at the very core of the present knowledge of
the unification via supersymmetry, being at the basis of
ten-dimensional superstrings, superYang-Mills and
supergravity theories (and perhaps the already mentioned
$F$-theory). A well-established feature of Majorana-Weyl
spacetimes is that they are endorsed of a rich structure.
A legitimate question one can ask oneself is whether they are
affected, and how, by space-time dualities. The answer is quite
surprising (in fact it should not be so, with afterthought),
the structure of dualities is much richer than expected and
potentially able to shed a complete new light on the subject.
Indeed all different Majorana-Weyl spacetimes which are possibly
present in any given dimension are each-other related by duality
transformations which are induced by the $Spin(8)$ triality
automorphisms.
The action of the triality automorphisms is quite non-trivial and
has far richer consequences than the ${\bf Z}_2$-duality
(its most trivial representative) associated to the space-time
$(s,t)\leftrightarrow (t,s)$ exchange discussed in \cite{Duff}.
It corresponds to $S_3$, the six-element group of permutations
of three letters, identified with the group of congruences of the
triangle and generated by two reflections.
The lowest-dimension in which the triality action is non-trivial
is $8$ (not quite a coincidence), where the spacetimes
$(8+0)-(4+4)-(0+8)$ are all interrelated. They correspond to the
transverse coordinates of the $(9+1)-(5+5)-(1+9)$ spacetimes
respectively, where the triality action can also be lifted. Triality
relates as well the $12$-dimensional Majorana-Weyl spacetimes
$(10+2)-(6+6)-(2+10)$, i.e. the potentially interesting cases for
the $F$-theory, and so on.\\
As a consequence of triality, supersymmetric theories formulated
with Majorana-Weyl spinors in a given dimension but with different
signatures, are all dually mapped one into another.
A three-language dictionary is here furnished with the exact
translations among, e.g., the different versions of the $10$-dimensional
MW supersymmetric theories, formulated in the Majorana-Weyl
representation.\par
The strategy here followed is based in three steps. At first it
is shown that Majorana-Weyl spacetimes in dimensions $d> 8$
can be recovered from the properties of the $8$-dimensional
Majorana-Weyl
spacetimes and $\Gamma$-matrices representations. Next, working in
$d=8$, we construct, for each one of the three Majorana-Weyl
spacetimes $(8+0)$, $(4+4)$, $(0+8)$, the ``bridge transformations"
relating the corresponding Majorana-Weyl representations to the
representations (called ``VCA" in the text) which exhibit manifest
triality among vectors, chiral and antichiral spinors. As a final
step new ``bridge transformations" of spacetime kind, relating
among them the VCA representations constructed in each one
of the Majorana-Weyl spacetimes above, are given.\par
We emphasize that, contrary to Hull \cite{Hull}, the dualities
here discussed are already present for the {\it uncompactified}
theories and in this respect look more fundamental.\par
Moreover, bilinear and trilinear invariants under the $S_3$
permutation group of the three Majorana-Weyl spacetimes are
constructed. They can be possibly used to formulate supersymmetric
Majorana-Weyl theories in a manifestly triality-invariant form
which presents an explicit symmetry under exchange of space and
time coordinates.\par
The present paper is intended to be an abridged version, suitable
for a letter-size, of a forthcoming extended version which
presents in full detail the construction and where extra results
which are outside the scope of this letter are also furnished.\par
The scheme of this work is as follows. In the next section we
recall, following \cite{Kugo} and \cite{DeAn}, the basic properties
of
$\Gamma$-matrices and Majorana conditions needed for our
construction. Majorana-type representations are analyzed in
section $3$. We show how to relate the Majorana-Weyl representations
in $d> 8$ to the $8$-dimensional Majorana-Weyl representations.
In section $4$ we introduce, for $d=8$, the set of data necessary
to
define a supersymmetric Majorana-Weyl theory, i.e.
the set of ``words" of our three-languages dictionary. The Cartan's
\cite{Cart}
triality among vectors, chiral and antichiral spinors is presented
in section $5$. The main result is furnished in section $6$, where
spacetime triality is discussed. In the Conclusions we furnish some
comments and point out some perspectives.

\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\section{Preliminary results.}}

Here we limit ourselves to introduce the basic ingredients needed
for our constructions. Further information is found in \cite{Kugo}
and \cite{DeAn}.\par
We denote as $g_{mn}$ the flat (pseudo-)euclidean metric of a
$(t+s)$-spacetime.
Time
(space) directions in our conventions are associated to the $+$
(respectively $-$) sign. \par
The $\Gamma$'s matrices are assumed to be unitary (the chosen normalization
is for the square of time-like
$\Gamma$-matrices being $+1$). The three matrices
${\cal A}$, ${\cal B}$, ${\cal C}$ are the generators of the three
conjugation operations (hermitian, complex conjugation and transposition
respectively) on the $\Gamma$'s.
In particular
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal C} \Gamma^m {\cal C}^\dagger &=& \eta(-1)^{t+1}{\Gamma^m}^T
\label{0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eta=\pm 1$ in even-dimensional spacetimes label
inequivalent choices of the charge conjugation matrix ${\cal
C}$.\par
${\cal A}, {\cal B}, {\cal C}$ are related by the formula
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal C}&=& {\cal B}^T {\cal A} \label{1}
\end{eqnarray}
Up to an inessential phase, ${\cal A}$ is specified by the product of all the
time-like $\Gamma$ matrices.
An unitary transformations $U$ applied on spinors act on $\Gamma^{m}$,
${\cal A}, {\cal B}, {\cal C}$ according to \cite{DeAn}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma^m &\mapsto& U\Gamma^m U^\dag\nonumber\\ {\cal A}&\mapsto&
U{\cal A}U^{\dag}\nonumber\\{\cal B}&\mapsto& U^\ast {\cal B}
U^{\dag}\nonumber\\
{\cal C}&\mapsto & U^\ast{\cal C} U^\dag \label{2}
\end{eqnarray}
A Majorana representation for the $\Gamma$'s can be defined as the one
in which ${\cal B}$ is set equal to the identity. Spinors can be
assumed real in this case.\par
In even dimensions we can also introduce the notion of Weyl
representation, i.e. when the ``generalized $\Gamma^5$ matrix" is
symmetric and block diagonal and with no loss of generality
can be assumed to be the direct sum of the two equal-size blocks
${\bf 1}\oplus (-{\bf 1})$.
The compatibility of both Majorana and Weyl conditions
constraints the spacetime $(t+s)$ to satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
s-t&=& 0 \quad {\it mod}\quad 8, \quad {\it for} \quad{\it both}\quad
{\it values}
\quad \eta=\pm 1
\label{3}
\end{eqnarray}
In even dimensions
Majorana representations, but not of Weyl type, are also found for
\begin{eqnarray}
s-t &=& 2 \quad  mod \quad 8 \quad  for \quad \eta=-1;\nonumber \\
s-t &=& 6 \quad mod \quad 8 \quad for \quad \eta= +1.
\label{4}
\end{eqnarray}
For $d<8$ the only spacetimes supporting Majorana-Weyl spinors
have signatures $(n+n)$. At $d=8$ a new feature arises,
Majorana-Weyl spinors can be found for different signatures.

 \vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\section{Majorana-type representations.}}

It is convenient to introduce the notion of Majorana-type
representation (or shortly MTR) for the $\Gamma$ matrices as one in
which all the $\Gamma$'s have a definite symmetry. For $d= p+q$
a MTR with $p$ symmetric and $q$ antisymmetric $\Gamma$'s will
be denoted as
$(p_S, q_A)$ in the following. \par
For such representations the ${\cal C}$ matrix introduced in the
previous section is given by either the product of all the symmetric
$\Gamma$ matrices, denoted as ${\cal C}_S$, or all the antisymmetric
ones (${\cal C}_A$). In even dimensions ${\cal C}_S$,
${\cal C}_A$ correspond to opposite values of $\eta$ in (\ref{0}).\par
A Majorana representation in a given signature spacetime is a MTR.
Conversely, given a MTR, we can find a spacetime signature for
which the representation is Majorana. The admissible couples of
$(p_S, q_A)$ values for a MTR are immediately read from
the Majorana tables given above ({\ref{3}) and (\ref{4}). The
construction is such that ${\cal C}$ must correspond to the
correct value of $\eta$ in the tables.\par
The list of all possible MTR's in any given dimension is easily
computed. In order just to give an example one can check that in $d=6$
there exists a MTR (not of Weyl kind) with $6$ anticommuting $\Gamma$
matrices plus an anticommuting $\Gamma^7$ $(0_S, 6_A, {\Gamma^7}_A)$.
It gives the Majorana basis in the Euclidean $6$-dimensional space.
\par
In $d=8$ the MTR's of Weyl type are $(8_S,0_A)$,
$(4_S,4_A)$, $(0_S,8_A)$, associated to the corresponding Majorana-Weyl
spacetimes.\par
Different MTR's belong to different classes under similarity
transformations of the
$\Gamma$'s representations. Indeed
in, let's say, an euclidean (all $+$ signs) space, the
index
\begin{eqnarray}
&&I = tr (\Gamma^m \cdot {\Gamma_m}^T) = (p_S-q_A)\cdot tr{\bf 1}
\label{5}
\end{eqnarray}
takes different values for different MTR's.\par
We computed explicitly all MTR's up to
$d=12$ and Majorana-Weyl representations
up to $d=14$ (the results will be furnished elsewhere)
by using a recursive
algorithm presented in \cite{Cola}. It allows producing Weyl
representations in $d$ dimensions from any given couple of
representations in $r$ and $s$ dimensions, for even-dimensional $d,r,s$
satisfying $d=r+s+2$. The only MTR up to $d=12$ which does not directly
fit
into this scheme, the above-mentioned $6$-dimensional $(0_S,6_A)$,
is however constructed from the $(3_S,3_A)$ representation
(this one directly produced from the $2$-dimensional Pauli matrices for
$r=s=2$) after computing the value of the symmetric
matrix ${\cal
B}$ in the euclidean $6$-dimensional space, and later finding the
transformation (\ref{2}) which maps it into the unity.
\par
The algorithm is given by the formula
\begin{eqnarray}
{\Gamma_d}^{i=1,..., s+1} &=& \sigma_x\otimes {\bf 1}_L\otimes
{\Gamma_s}^{i=1,...,s+1}\nonumber\\
{\Gamma_d}^{s+1+j = s+2, ..., d} &=&
\sigma_y\otimes{\Gamma_r}^{j=1,...,r+1}\otimes {\bf 1}_R
\label{algo}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf 1}_{L,R}$ are the unit-matrices in the respective
spaces, while $\sigma_x = e_{12}+e_{21}$ and $\sigma_y = -i e_{12}+i
e_{21}$ are the $2$-dimensional Pauli matrices.
${\Gamma_r}^{r+1}$ corresponds to the ``generalized $\Gamma^5$-matrix"
in $r+1$ dimensions. In the above
formula the values $r,s=0$ are allowed. The corresponding
${\Gamma_0}^1$ is just $1$.\par
With the help of the above formula we have a very efficient tool
to reduce the
analysis of Majorana-Weyl representations for $d\geq 10$ to the
$8$-dimensional case, since we can always set either $r$ or $s$
equal to $8$ (or possibly both, which corresponds to the $d=18$
case). Up to $d=14$ Majorana-Weyl spacetimes exist for three
different signatures and the same situation of $d=8$ is repeated.
A new
feature arises for $d\geq 16$. A careful analysis of the consistency
conditions is needed in this case, since the triality
transformations that we later discuss no longer preserve the similarity
classes of MTRs; stated otherwise, different representatives of MTR's
in the same similarity class and for the same couple of values
$(p_S,q_A)$ are mapped under a given triality transformation into
representatives of MTR belonging to different
similarity classes. This feature is likely to be related with the
problems encountered
in defining supersymmetric theories in dimensions greater
than $14$, which have been e.g. pointed out in \cite{Sezg}. \par
In any case the construction here discussed is suited to analyze and
works perfectly well for the range $d=8,...,14$, i.e. the cases which are
of interest
for, among the others, the superstrings and the F-theory (notice that
the above scheme can find applications to dualities also for odd-dimensional
Majorana spacetimes as the $11$-dimensional ones supporting the $M$-theory,
we will comment more on that in the conclusions).
We postpone to the extended version of this paper the presentation
of the full
set of reconstruction formulas which make explicit the
construction of MW-spacetimes
in dimensions $d>8$ in terms of the $8$-dimensional ones. For the
purpose of this paper is sufficient to recall that such
reconstruction formulas can be given. In particular the higher
dimensional ${\cal C}$ charge conjugation matrices for $d>8$ can
be expressed in terms of the eight-dimensional matrices ${\cal
C}_8$.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\section{The set of data for $d=8$.}}

In this section we present the set of data needed to specify a
Majorana-Weyl supersymmetric theory formulated in $8$-dimensions.
As we have stated in the previous section, this set of data
can be ``lifted" to define Majorana-Weyl supersymmetric theories
formulated in higher-dimensions. The results here furnished
therefore have a more general validity.\par
At first we recall that we have three different Majorana-Weyl
spacetimes $(8+0)-(4+4)-(0+8)$ and two choices for $\eta=\pm 1$,
so in total $3\times 2=6$ inequivalent theories (i.e. inequivalent
versions of some given supersymmetric theory) that can be
formulated in $d=8$.\par
Each one of these versions is characterized
by the following set of data {\em all expressed in the
corresponding Majorana-Weyl representation}, being this one the most
suitable for analyzing supersymmetry.
Such data will play the roles of the
``words" in the three-languages dictionary that will be later
furnished:
\par
{\em i)} the bosonic (and/or vector-fields) coordinates $x_m$, with
vector index $m=1,...,8$;\par
{\em ii)} the fermionic coordinates (and/or spinorial fields)
$\psi_a$, $\chi_{\dot{a}}$, with chiral and antichiral
indices $a=1,...,8$, $\dot{a}=1,...,8$ respectively;\par
{\em iii)} the diagonal (pseudo-)orthogonal spacetime metric
$(g^{-1})^{mn}$, $g_{mn}$;\par
{\em iv)} the ${\cal A}$ matrix of section $2$, used to introduce barred
spinors, which is now decomposed in an equal-size block diagonal form
such as ${\cal A} = A\oplus {\tilde A}$, with structure of indices
${(A)_a}^b$ and ${(\tilde{A})_{\dot{a}}}^{\dot{b}}$
respectively;\par
{\em v)} the charge-conjugation matrix ${\cal C}$, always symmetric,
also put in
equal-size block diagonal form ${\cal C} = {C^{-1}}\oplus {\tilde
C}^{-1}$. Since ${\cal C}$ is invariant under bispinorial
transformations it can be promoted to be a metric for the space
of chiral (and respectively antichiral) spinors, used to raise and
lower spinorial indices. Indeed we can set
$(C^{-1})^{ab}$, $(C)_{ab}$, and $({\tilde C}^{-1})^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}$,
$({\tilde C})_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}$;\par
{\em vi) } finally we have the upper-left $\sigma$ and the lower-right
${\tilde \sigma}$ blocks in the $\Gamma$'s matrices with structure of indices
${(\sigma_m)_a}^{\dot{b}}$ and
${(\tilde{\sigma}_m)_{\dot{a}}}^b$ respectively.\par
The ${\cal B}$ matrix is automatically set to be the
identity (${\cal B} ={\bf 1}$)
due to our choice of working in the Majorana-Weyl
representation.\par
In order to work in the Majorana-Weyl basis for each
one of the six different versions of the theory, the correct
Majorana-type representation must be picked up. In $(4+4)$ the
$(4_S,4_A)$ representation must be chosen for both values of
$\eta$, while in $(8+0)$ the $(8_S,0_A)$ works for $\eta=+1$ and
the $(0_S,8_A)$ works for $\eta=-1$ (and conversely in the $(0+8)$
case).\par
For later purpose it is convenient to present the matrix ${\cal
C}$ for each one of the six versions.
We have
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal C} &=& \Gamma^9 = {\bf 1}_8\oplus (-{\bf 1}_8) ~\quad\quad\quad
\quad\quad in \quad
(8+0)\nonumber\\
{\cal C} &=& {\bf 1}_{16}\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\quad\quad\quad\quad
 in \quad
(0+8)\nonumber\\
{\cal C} &=& (C^{-1})\oplus (\eta C^{-1})\quad\quad\quad\quad
\quad ~~ in \quad (4+4)
\label{ccc}
\end{eqnarray}
where in the last case $C^{-1}$ can be chosen to be the $8\times
8$ matrix with $(+--++--+)$ entries in the antidiagonal and
$0$ entries in any other position.

\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\section{The V-C-A triality.}}

The outer automorphisms of the $D_4$ Lie algebra is responsible
for the triality property among the $8$-dimensional vector, chiral
and antichiral spinor representations of $SO(8)$ which has been
first discussed by Cartan \cite{Cart}. \par
In our language the triality property can be restated as follows.
The $C^{-1}$, ${\tilde C}^{-1}$ matrices introduced in the
previous section, for each one of the six different cases we
discussed, are symmetric and with the same set (up to
an overall sign) of eigenvalues
($\pm 1$) as the corresponding $g^{-1}$ spacetime metric.\par
In each one of the above cases one can simultaneously map
both $C^{-1}$, ${\tilde
C}^{-1}$ (with different similarity transformations ${\cal G}$,
${\tilde {\cal G}}$) into the corresponding spacetime $g^{-1}$
metric:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal G}: \quad C^{-1} &\mapsto & g^{-1} = G\cdot C^{-1}\cdot
G^T\nonumber\\
{\tilde{{\cal G}}} : \quad {\tilde C}^{-1} &\mapsto & g^{-1} =
{\tilde G}\cdot {\tilde C}^{-1}\cdot {\tilde G}^T
\end{eqnarray}
The structure of indices for $G$ and its inverse $G^{-1}$ is
${(G)^m}_a$ and ${(G^{-1})^a}_m $ (an analogous structure holds for
${\tilde G}$, and ${\tilde G}^{-1}$). Therefore $G$, ${\tilde G}$
can be used to transform chiral (antichiral) indices in vector
indices allowing to work with, let's say, vector indices
alone.\par
The concrete $8\times 8$-dimensional matrices $G$, ${\tilde G}$ are
of course not uniquely defined since any other matrix of the kind
$L_C\cdot G\cdot L_g$, with $L_C$, $L_g$ preserving by
similarity the $C^{-1}$ and the $g^{-1}$ metrics respectively, are
equally well suited. For our purposes however it is sufficient to
furnish a concrete representative for the $G$, ${\tilde G}$
matrices.\par
In all the above cases we can choose the
concrete matrices $G$, ${\tilde G}$ to be
square root of unity:
\begin{eqnarray}
G^2 = {\tilde G}^2& =&{\bf 1}_8
\end{eqnarray}
Indeed the only case in the previous section discussion
where $C^{-1}$ (${\tilde
C}^{-1}$) is not diagonal is the $(4+4)$ case, with
$C^{-1}$ given in (\ref{ccc}) and ${\tilde C}^{-1} =\pm C^{-1}$.
A matrix $G$ which sets
$C^{-1}$ to the diagonal form $(++++----)$ is
\begin{equation}
G = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\cdot
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
  1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
  0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 \\
  0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 & 0 \\
  0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
  0 & 0 & 0 & 1 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
  0 & 0 &-1 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 & 0 \\
  0 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 \\
  1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1
\end{array}
\right)
\label{matrix}
\end{equation}
In all the other cases we have to flip a number
$n$ of signs in the diagonal, with $n=0$ $mod$ $4$.
Instead of working with the standard Wick rotation
prescription, which is the only one applicable
for {\em odd} numbers of signs
to be flipped, a smarter choice is allowed for {\em even} numbers
of flipping: the passage e.g. from $(++)\mapsto (--)$ can be
produced via similarity with the help of the $\sigma_y$ Pauli
matrix $\sigma_y = -i e_{12} +i e_{21}$, through
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_y \cdot{\bf 1}_2 \cdot {\sigma_y}^T &=& - {\bf 1}_2
\end{eqnarray}
Of course $\sigma_y$ satisfies ${\sigma_y}^2= {\bf 1}_2$
and is antisymmetric. The bridge matrices $G$ which flip the
euclidean $(++++++++)$ metric into the $(++++----)$ and
the $(--------)$
metrics are therefore respectively given by
\begin{eqnarray}
G_1 &=& {\bf 1}_4\oplus\sigma_y\oplus \sigma_y\nonumber\\
G_2 &=& \sigma_y\oplus\sigma_y\oplus\sigma_y\oplus\sigma_y
\label{bridges}
\end{eqnarray}
which are both square root of unity.\par
The above given bridge operators $G$, ${\tilde G}$ in a given
Majorana-Weyl spacetime allows to pass from the Majorana-Weyl
representation to another representation, that we can call VCA,
where triality is manifest and only vector-like indices are
present. Please notice that, as far as transformation properties
alone are concerned, the commuting or anticommuting nature of
spinors is not taken into account. For commuting spinors a more
radical property holds. Bilinear and trilinear invariants under
the $S_3$ permutation group of vectors, chiral and antichiral
spinors, can be constructed.
The procedure is as follows. At first the three bilinear scalars
\begin{eqnarray}
&&B_V = V^T \eta^{-1} V, \quad\quad
B_C = \psi^T C^{-1}\psi, \quad\quad
B_A = \chi^T {\tilde C}^{-1} \chi
\label{bilinear}
\end{eqnarray}
and the trilinear one
\begin{eqnarray}
T &=& \psi^T C^{-1}\sigma \eta^{-1}V\chi
\label{trilinear}
\end{eqnarray}
are constructed. Applying the above bridge transformations in a passive
way we can set
\begin{eqnarray}
{\hat \psi} = {(G^T)}^{-1} \psi,\quad &\quad&\quad
 {\hat \chi} = {({\tilde G}^T)}^{-1}\chi
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
&& B_V = V^T\eta^{-1}V, \quad\quad B_C = {\hat \psi}^T \eta^{-1}{\hat
\psi},\quad \quad B_A= {\hat \chi}^T\eta^{-1}{\hat\chi}
\end{eqnarray}
and their sum
\begin{eqnarray}
B&=& B_V+B_C+B_A
\end{eqnarray}
is by construction invariant under the $S_3$ exchange of $V,{\hat\psi}^T,
{\hat\chi}$.\par
As for the trilinear term $T$, it reads as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
T&=& {\hat\psi}^T M V {\hat \chi}
\end{eqnarray}
where the trivector $M$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
M^{mnp} &=& (\eta^{-1})^{mr} {({G^T}^{-1})_r}^a
{(\sigma_q)_a}^{\dot b} (\eta^{-1})^{qn}{{({\tilde G}^T)}_{\dot
b}}^p
\label{trivector}
\end{eqnarray}
A trilinear scalar, invariant under $S_3$, is  constructed through
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \sum_{perm} M^{mnp}V_m {{\hat \psi}^T}_n{\hat\chi}_p
\end{eqnarray}
where the sum is extended over all the permutations of $V,
{\hat\psi}^T, {\hat\chi}$.\par
The action of the $S_3$ permutation group on the original vectors,
chiral
and antichiral spinors is given by the pull-back of the bridge
transformations. It is just sufficient to write it down for two
of the generators, called $P$, $R$, of $S_3$, where
\begin{eqnarray}
P^2=R^2={\bf 1} \quad&\quad& \quad (PR)^3 ={\bf 1}
\end{eqnarray}
We have
\begin{eqnarray}
P: &&V\mapsto V, \quad\quad \quad {\psi^T} \leftrightarrow
{\tilde G}^T \chi G\nonumber\\
R: && \psi^T\mapsto\psi^T, \quad\quad V\leftrightarrow
{\tilde G}^T \chi
\end{eqnarray}

\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\section{The spacetime triality.}}

The triality discussed in the previous section is the
Cartan's $V-C-A$ triality, which connects vectors, chiral and
antichiral spinors of the {\em same} spacetime. However
the procedure which has been used so far can be repeated to
connect vectors belonging to spacetime metrics with
different signatures.
In the case of our interest three spacetimes, denoted
as $X,Y,Z$, possess vector-indices
$(m, {\tilde m}, {\overline{m}}$)
which are referred to the metrics\\
$(++++++++)$, $(++++----)$,
$(--------)$
respectively.\par
The passage from one of the above
metrics to another one can be done by employing the same bridge
matrices introduced in (\ref{bridges}). The construction
straightforwardly repeat the one already encountered.
It should be clear that an enormous technical advantage is offered
by performing the connection between two different Majorana-Weyl
spacetimes working in both cases with the respective VCA
representations.
The ``spacetime bridge matrices" in this case only see
vector indices.
The connection between Majorana-Weyl representations
is then reconstructed in terms of the bridge matrices
(introduced in the previous section)
linking, in each one of the two spacetimes, the Majorana-Weyl
with the VCA representation. \par
There is no need to repeat here the formulas presented in section
5. Each one finds its ``mirror spacetime" equivalent. They have
just to be reinterpreted in the light of the spacetime
triality.\par
We just point out that under spacetime triality
$Y_{\tilde m}$, $Z_{\overline m}$ are mapped into
\begin{eqnarray}
Y_{\tilde m} \mapsto {\hat Y}_m,\quad&\quad&\quad
Z_{\overline m} \mapsto {\hat Z}_m
\end{eqnarray}
carrying a $(++++++++)$ vector index-structure.\par
The bilinear invariant under the $S_3$ group
of permutations is
\begin{eqnarray}
B&=& X^T{\eta_X}^{-1}X +{\hat Y}^T {\eta_X}^{-1}{\hat Y}
+{\hat Z}^T {\eta_X}^{-1}{\hat Z}
\end{eqnarray}
while the trilinear one is
\begin{eqnarray}
T&=& \sum_{perm} M^{mnp} X_m {{\hat Y}_n}^T {\hat Z}_p
\end{eqnarray}
where the trivector $M^{mnp}$ is constructed in full
analogy with (\ref{trivector}).\par
We remark that for what concerns spacetime triality invariances
it is likely that we do not
have to bother about the anticommuting character of spinors
as it is the case for invariances under $V-C-A$ triality.
For instance, in the simplest example, the bosonic
supersymmetric composite vector $X^m = x^m - i{\overline \theta}
\Gamma^m \theta $ is the building block to introduce the superparticle
and we do not need to worry about Grassmann
variables.
\par
Let us finally comment that the same bridge transformations
already
encountered can be used to produce dualities relating the opposite
values of $\eta$. Indeed just an overall $-$ sign for the
${\tilde C}^{-1}$ matrix distinguishes the two cases.

\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\section{Conclusions.}}

In this paper we have shown that the triality automorphisms of
$Spin(8)$ not only
induce dualities among different-signatures Majorana-Weyl
spacetimes, but also furnish bilinear and trilinear invariants
which can be possibly used to formulate supersymmetric theories
possessing a space-time triality invariance. \par
Triality relations connect the various Majorana-Weyl spacetimes in
a given dimension.\par
The basic strategy of our construction consists in the fact that
even for dimensions $d>8$ the different signatures of Majorana-Weyl
spacetimes can be encoded in the $8$-dimensional $\Gamma$
matrices, used as building blocks in the construction of
the higher-dimensional $\Gamma$'s.\par
The bridge operators connecting in each given Majorana-Weyl
spacetime the Majorana-Weyl representation to a Cartan-type
representation in which the $8$-dimensional $V-C-A$ triality
is manifest are helpful in linking together different-signatures
Majorana-Weyl spacetimes. Indeed in a Cartan-like basis the
problem of relating different space-time signatures is
considerably simplified since we have to worry about just
how to connect vector-like indices and spacetime metrics.
\par
A complete and extensive list of the results here outlined will be
presented in a forthcoming paper.\par
The range of possible applications for the methods and the ideas here
discussed is vast. We limit ourselves to mention that we are currently
investigating the web of dualities connecting the $12$-dimensional
Majorana-Weyl spacetimes which should support the $F$-theory
($3\times 2$, taking into account of $\eta$), with the
$6$ versions of the $11$-dimensional Majorana spacetimes (for the
$M$-theory) in $(10+1)$, $(9+2)$, $(6+5)$, $(5+6)$, $(2+9)$,
$(1+10)$ signatures and with the different (again $3\times 2$)
versions of the $10$-dimensional Majorana-Weyl spacetimes.

\vskip1cm \noindent{\Large{\bf Acknowledgments}} \\ {\quad}\\ We
are pleased to acknowledge J. A. Helay\"{e}l-Neto and L.P. Colatto
for both encouragement and helpful discussions. We are grateful to
DCP-CBPF for the kind hospitality.


\section{E864 Apparatus}

  E864\cite{nim} at Brookhaven National Laboratory is an open geometry,
high data rate apparatus designed to search for novel objects such as
strange quark matter. It is a fixed-target experiment at the AGS with
incident Au beam momentum of $11.5GeV/c$ per nucleon.
We can have two independent mass
measurements with the E864 apparatus
the tracking system and the hadronic calorimeter.
The requirement that the two measurements agree provides excellent particle
identification and background rejection.
The tracking system has
two dipole analyzing magnets (M1 and M2) followed by
three hodoscope planes (H1, H2 and H3). There are two straw stations
(S2 and S3), each with three close-packed double planes.
Each scintillating hodoscope plane has 206 vertical slats, and there are
960 and 1920 straw tubes in each S2 and S3 straw plane respectively.
The tracking system measures
momentum, charge and velocity (\(\beta\)) of charged particles with a mass
resolution of few percents in the region of interest. Charge misidentification
is less than 1 in $10^{8}$ due to three redundant measurements of energy
loss in the hodoscopes.
There is an additional mass measurement from the hadronic
calorimeter\cite{calo}
which has good energy (\(\Delta E/{\sqrt{E}}={0.344/{\sqrt{E}}}+0.035\))  and
time (\(\sigma_{t} \simeq 400ps\)) resolutions. It is made of
754 towers of scintillating fiber-embedded lead. The containment of a
hadronic shower is about 50\% in the peak tower and about 90\% in the
$3\times3$ array around the peak tower. This allows sufficient quality
requirements of the shower cluster and provides for good neutron measurements.
A vacuum tank along the beam line reduces the background from beam particles
interacting with air. The total length of the apparatus is about 28 meters.

The trigger consists of good beam definition, a multiplicity
requirement\cite{haridas} and an optional level II high mass
trigger -- the Late-Energy Trigger (LET)\cite{let}. The LET utilizes the
energy and time-of-flight measurements from the calorimeter.
Only the 10\% most
central collisions were collected for the data presented here. The data
are from four different experimental settings optimized for the different
physics topics. Proton, deuteron,
$^{3}He$ and triton measurements are from the 1995 run with the "+.45T" field
setting on M1 and M2 magnets\cite{nigel} and with a Pb target of 5\%
interaction length for Au nuclei. Neutron data are from the 1995 run with the
highest field setting of "+1.5T" (5\% Pb target)\cite{evan}
while the rest of the data are from the 1996 run at the "+1.5T" field setting
with the high mass level II trigger and Pt target of 60\% interaction length
(physical thickness of 1.5cm) mainly for the strange quark matter
search\cite{xzb} with the exception that the $^{7}Be$ and $^{7}Li$
measurements were from the combination of "-.75T" and "+1.5T"
field settings taken in the 1996 run. Due to the open geometry, there is
sufficient overlap from different settings for consistency
checks\cite{prc,pope,nigel,xzb,evan}.

   Because of E864's large acceptance, we are able to divide each measurement
into several rapidity ($y$) and transverse momentum ($p_{T}$) bins.
At $y\simeq1.9$ and $p_{T}/A\leq300MeV/c$, the acceptance is about
20\% for most of the light nuclei. It is in this momentum range where we
can compare yields of the different species.
In other bins, we do not have acceptance for
all the light nuclei detected. Interesting and more detailed
aspects of the rapidity and transverse momentum distribution of the
produced light nuclei will be presented in other papers\cite{prc}.

For charged nuclei with $A\leq3$, the production rates are relatively high
so that the LET trigger is not required and the analysis does not use
the hadronic calorimeter.
The calorimeter is the only significant detector for the neutron
measurement where the tracking detectors serve as tools to calibrate the
system and to reject the charged particles which deposit energy in the
calorimeter. For high mass nuclei ($A\geq4$) with low
production rate, the LET was required to select those events with high mass
candidates.
The LET rejects those events without any high mass candidates and achieves a
rejection factor of about 70 while maintaining good efficiency
for high mass states
($\simeq50\%$ for $^{4}He$ and ${}^{>}_{\sim}85\%$ for $A\geq5$).

  Invariant yields are calculated and presented in terms of
$d^{2}N/(2\pi p_{T}dp_{T}dy)$ in
units of $GeV^{-2}c^{2}$ as shown in Table~\ref{tab:y_vs_a7}.
The number of particles (N) are taken from the mass
distributions in each rapidity and $p_{T}$ bin with background subtracted.
The background level is about 10\% or less in most of the bins.
Acceptance and efficiency corrections using either simulation or data
analysis are applied with the associated systematic and statistical errors.
The errors of the measurements of proton, neutron, deuteron and $^{3}He$ are
on the order of 10\%. The rest of the measurements have larger errors
varying from 20\% ($\alpha$, $^{6}He$) to 45\% ($^{6}Li$, $^{7}Li$, $^{7}Be$)
due to uncertainty in the LET trigger
efficiency ($\simeq10\%$), low statistics (up to $40\%$) and high
background level from lower mass nuclei (up to $20\%$). Target
absorption of the produced particles is negligible for the 5\% Pb target and
about 8\% for the 60\% Pt target.
The total systematic error for these measurements varies from a few percent
to about 25\%.

  Figure~\ref{fig:y_vs_a7} shows the invariant yield as a function of nuclear
number A for stable or metastable particle with $A=1$ to $A=7$.
The rapidity binning is $\Delta y=0.2$ with the exception of
$\Delta y=0.6$ for $^{7}Li$.
$p_{T}$ binning is $\Delta p_{T}=100MeV$ (100MeV-200MeV) for A=1 to 3,
$250MeV$ (500MeV-750MeV) for $^{4}He$, $500MeV$ (500MeV-1GeV) for
$^{6}He$ and $^{6}Li$, and $2GeV$ (0-2GeV, acceptance peaks at 750MeV) for $^{7}Li$ and $^{7}Be$.
These bin sizes keep $p_{T}/A\leq300MeV$.
The invariant yields span almost ten orders of magnitudes with striking
exponential behavior.

A fit to the A dependence of the invariant yields in this rapidity bin results
in a penalty factor of about 50 ($48\pm3$, $\chi^{2}/8=4.9$) for each
additional nucleon to the nuclear cluster. This penalty factor is much
higher than the penalty factor in the system with lower beam energy at the
BEVALAC\cite{baltz,bevalac}.
The consequence is that it is much harder to form high mass objects by
coalescence, such as strange quark matter.

In a statistical approach to the formation of light nuclei, the yield is proportional to the spin factor (2J+1)\cite{nagle,baltz,braun,heinz,mekjian}.
One can go one step further to analyze the
deviations of the invariant yields from the exponential behavior
(figure~\ref{fig:spin}.A). The measured ratios of proton to neutron,
$^{3}He$ to triton, $^{6}Li$ to $^{6}He$ and their corresponding spin factors
strongly indicate that the production rate is proportional to the spin
factor ($2J+1$) of the produced particle\cite{prc,nigel,xzb,evan}.
Therefore, it is probably reasonable to include this spin factor in the
production rate, which is consistent with most of the
models\cite{nagle,baltz,braun,heinz,mekjian}.
Figure~\ref{fig:spin}.B shows the spin
corrected deviations (from exponential behavior), which still have significant
deviations. We note, however, that the ratios for $A=6$ states with spin
factors differing by a factor of 3 are brought into agreement with each
other by the spin factor correction\cite{prc,xzb}. The spin correction
factor is taken as $(2J+1)/(2\times{1\over2}+1)$ with a normalization
to the nucleon spin factor of 2.

When the deviation after spin factor correction is plotted as a function of
binding energy per baryon as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:binding},
we can fit the dependence with an exponential function of an inverse
slope of $T_{s}=5.9\pm1.1MeV$ when the A dependence of
$(2J+1)/2\times26/48^{A-1}$ is applied.
The small difference (n to p ratio of about $1.2\pm0.1$)
between the abundances of neutron and proton at
freeze-out\cite{prc,nigel,evan} is corrected for in the analysis shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:binding}. If the total binding energy\cite{mekjian}
instead of the binding energy per baryon is used, the inverse slope is about
$T_{s}\simeq36MeV$.

  From the measurements of light nuclei production near midrapidity
(at $y\simeq1.9$, where $y_{CM}\simeq1.6$) with low transverse momentum,
a penalty factor of about 50 for each additional nucleon is found in the
invariant yield. Although
the total production rate comes from the integration of the whole phase
space which might differ from the measured invariant yield (due to flow,
etc.), we do not expect the ratios of different particle species between
total production and the rapidity and $p_{T}$ range we cover to be
different by orders of magnitude.
In fact, if we use the parametrization of the correction factor from
\cite{heinz}, the penalty factor is estimated to be between 39 and 72.
Therefore, the penalty factor can be applied to estimate the production
rates of heavy clusters. Due to the small elastic structure function of
light nuclei at large momentum transfer\cite{dq1}, the possibility of
light nuclei at $1.<y<2.2$ coming from projectile or target is small
compared to the observed production rates.

Naive comparison with theoretical estimates of chemical
potential and temperature at freeze-out from low mass hadronic
spectra\cite{braun} will show us whether the light nuclei might have
different chemical potential and temperature at hadronic freeze-out.
If we use the chemical potential of
$\mu_{N}=540MeV$ and temperature of $T=120MeV$\cite{braun}, we get a penalty
factor of $\exp{[(m_{N}-\mu_{N})/T]}\simeq 28$.
A kinetic freeze-out and radial flow analysis shows a
higher penalty factor of about 75 with $\mu_{N}=536MeV$ and
$T\simeq 93MeV$\cite{heinz}.

  The dependence of production rate on binding energy per baryon
shows the sensitivity of our data and can not be
explained by the coalescence model or the thermal model with the simple
$\exp{[-B/T]}$ where $T\simeq 100MeV$ and $B$ is the total binding energy
\cite{mekjian}.
One possible explanation is that the production rate might depend on the
size of the produced object, and therefore depend on its binding energy.
It is also possible that there exists some subtle final state interaction
which depends on the size or the binding energy. For example, collisions
with sufficient energy to break up the nuclei can occur down to surviving
temperatures which are comparable with the binding energy\cite{gsi}.

  In summary, E864 measures the invariant yields of light nuclei production
of protons, neutrons, deuterons, $^{3}He$, triton, $^{4}He$, $^{6}Li$,
$^{6}He$, $^{7}Li$ and $^{7}Be$ near $y_{CM}$ and $p_{T}\simeq0$. A striking
exponential behavior of light nucleus production as a function of nuclear
number is found. The penalty factor, extracted from the light nuclei
production rates, for an additional nucleon in the nuclear cluster is
about 50. Detailed analysis reveals that the invariant yield may also
depend on the spin factor and the binding energy of the produced nucleus.

We gratefully acknowledge the excellent support of the AGS staff. This work
was supported in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Energy's High
Energy and Nuclear Physics Divisions, and the U.S. National Science Foundation.
\small{
\begin{description}
\item[$\ast$]{Present address: (11)}
\item[$\dag$]{Present Address: Anderson Consulting, Hartford, CT}
\item[$\ddag$]{Present address: Univ. of Denver, Denver CO 80208}
\item[$\S$]{Deceased.}
\item[$\|$]{Present address: McKinsey \& Co., New York, NY 10022}
\item[$\P$]{Present address: Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond VA 23298}
\item[$\natural$]{Present address: University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN 37996}
\item[$\sharp$]{Present address: Institut de Physique Nucl\'{e}aire, 91406 Orsay Cedex, France}
\item[$\ell$]{Present Address: Institute for Defense Analysis, Alexandria VA 22311}
\item[$\dag\dag$]{Present Address: MIT Lincoln Laboratory,
Lexington MA 02420-9185}
\item[$\P\P$]{Present address: (2)}
\end{description}
}