\section{}

Event-by-event fluctuations of the particle yields in relativistic
nuclear collisions can be sensitive to the degree of chemical
equilibration \cite{Mrow} and to critical fluctuations due to the QCD
phase transition \cite{Krishna,BaymHeiselberg}. We study for the first
time the degree to which chemical equilibration can affect the
fluctuations of baryons at RHIC and LHC. Baryons and antibaryons are
likely produced in such abundance that event-by-event yields can be
measured \cite{gp1}.  We propose that chemical equilibration can
appreciably change the variances and covariance of protons and
antiprotons compared to thermal and participant-nucleon model
expectations.

Fluctuations of the baryon-antibaryon system can vary depending on the
degree to which the chemical reactions $N\overline{N}
\leftrightarrow$~mesons reach equilibrium \cite{gp1}.  In the absence
of chemical equilibrium, the number of antibaryons and baryons are
independently conserved. Fluctuations of the particle number are then
Poissonian,
\begin{equation} {\cal V}\equiv \sum_i(N_i - \langle N\rangle)^2
\approx  N, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\,\,\,\,\,\, {\rm thermal}
\label{eq:eq1}\end{equation}
where $N_i$ is the baryon number in the $i^{\rm th}$ event and $N
\equiv \langle N\rangle$ is the event average.  HIJING and similar
participant nucleon models exhibit essentially the same behavior for
nucleus-nucleus collisions \cite{BaymHeiselberg}. In contrast,
chemical equilibrium relates fluctuations of the baryons to those of
the antibaryons, reducing the relative variance compared to
(\ref{eq:eq1}).  We find \cite{gp1}:
\begin{equation}
{\cal V}\approx
 N^2(N+\overline{N})^{-1},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
 {\rm chemical}
\label{eq:eq2}\end{equation}
where $\overline{N}$ is the average number of antibaryons.
We recover (\ref{eq:eq1}) in the limit $N \gg \overline{N}$, since
baryon conservation fixes the number of particles in that limit.

If chemical equilibrium is achieved in RHIC collisions, the variance
(\ref{eq:eq2}) can fall to {\em half} the thermal and
participant-nucleon model level, because the numbers of baryons and
antibaryons are expected to be comparable at midrapidity
\cite{vance}. We propose that a further signal of equilibration can be
obtained from the baryon-antibaryon covariance,
\begin{equation}
{\cal C} =
\sum_i (\overline{N}_i - \langle \overline{N}\rangle)
(N_i - \langle N\rangle).
\label{eq:i3}\end{equation}
In chemical equilibrium, we find that the covariance can be negative,
\begin{equation}
{\cal C} \approx
-N\overline{N}(N+\overline{N})^{-1}.
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
 {\rm chemical}
\label{eq:i4}\end{equation}
On the other hand, this quantity essentially vanishes for collisions
of large nuclei in thermal equilibrium, or when $N \gg \overline{N}$.

The anti-correlation (\ref{eq:i4}) seems somewhat surprising --
positive correlations between baryons and antibaryons are seen in
$e^+e^-$ experiments \cite{tasso} and incorporated, e.g., in string
fragmentation models \cite{thor}. Such correlations are required by
baryon number conservation for those comparatively small systems. In
contrast, the anti-correlation (\ref{eq:i4}) and the reduction of the
variance (\ref{eq:eq2}) result from fluctuations of the net baryon
number itself. In a subvolume of a large system, fluctuations can
increase the net baryon number $N_B$ if either a particle enters or
an antiparticle exits the subvolume. Correspondingly, fluctuations of $N_B$
simultaneously increase $N$ and reduce $\overline{N}$, leading to an
anti-correlation.  This effect is only possible if chemical reactions
render the individual numbers $N$ and $\overline{N}$ indefinite.

To determine the degree of chemical equilibration from fluctuations in
experiments, one must account for the following additional sources of
fluctuations, all of which tend to increase $\cal V$ and drive $\cal
C$ toward positive values. Near local equilibrium, thermal and volume
fluctuations produce particle number fluctuations.  In experiments,
further fluctuations result from centrality selection and detector
acceptance effects \cite{gp1,BaymHeiselberg}.  To illustrate how
volume and thermal fluctuations can change the variance of particle
yields, we begin by extending the thermodynamic formulation of
ref.~\cite{gp1}.  We then apply the Monte Carlo event generator of
\cite{gp1} to compute the experimental contribution.

Our results imply that novel correlations can be observed if chemical
equilibrium is obtained. However, it is not obvious that baryons will
achieve chemical equilibrium or that equilibrium correlations will
survive chemical and thermal freezeout. We develop a simple
hadrochemical model to study the approach toward chemical equilibrium.
We estimate the corrections to (\ref{eq:eq1}) and (\ref{eq:eq2}) that
arise if the system is only partially equilibrated. We then briefly
discuss how elastic scattering following chemical freezeout can alter
$\cal C$ and $\cal V$

To illustrate how fluctuations alter antibaryon production in local
thermal and chemical equilibrium, we employ the idealized but standard
Bjorken hydrodynamic framework. We suppose that the energy and baryon
number are deposited near midrapidity by pre-equilibrium processes
that locally establish an initial temperature $T$, entropy density $s$
and net baryon density $\rho_B$.  These quantities are further assumed
to vary only with proper time $\tau$. Entropy and baryon number
conservation then imply that the rapidity densities for entropy,
$S = d{\cal S}/dy$, and net baryon number $N_B = d{\cal N}_B/dy$ are
constant.  The rapidity density of all hadrons is also nearly
constant, because $N_{\rm tot} \propto S$ for a system dominated by
light hadron species with masses $\ll T$. Mean rapidity densities of
individual species, such as antibaryons $\overline N$ and baryons $N$
vary with $\tau$. For this Bjorken scenario, it is useful to define an
effective volume $V \approx {\cal A} \tau$ that increases from a
formation time $\tau_0$ to freezeout at $\tau_F$, such that $V = S/s
\propto N_{\rm tot}/n_{\rm tot}$.  The transverse area $\cal A$ is
initially determined by the overlap of the colliding nuclei.

In local thermal and chemical equilibrium, the variances and
covariances of the state variables specify the fluctuations of all
bulk thermodynamic quantities. For our collision scenario, the
appropriate state variables are $T$, $V$ and $N_B$.  The fluctuations
of a quantity $X$ are characterized by the variance $\sigma_{X}^2 =
\langle\Delta X^2\rangle$ for $\Delta X \equiv X - \langle X\rangle$.
If we take the total number of hadrons $N_{\rm tot}$ to be
proportional to the entropy, then
\begin{equation}
\sigma_V^2/V^2
\approx
\langle\Delta N_{\rm tot}^2\rangle/N_{\rm tot}^2
\approx N_{\rm tot}^{-1}.
\label{eq:eq4a}\end{equation}
As in \cite{gp1}, we take the fluctuations of $T$ and $N_B$ to
satisfy:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_T^2 = T^2C_v^{-1},
\,\,\,\,\, \,\,\,\,\,
\sigma_{B}^2 = T\partial N_B/\partial \mu_B
\label{eq:eq4b}\end{equation}
for a system with a heat capacity $C_v$; see e.g. ref.~\cite{LL1}. For
an ideal hadron gas,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_T^2 \approx
T^2\sigma_V^2/12V^2,
\,\,\,\,\, \,\,\,\,\,
\sigma_{B}^2 = N + \overline{N},
\label{eq:eq4c}\end{equation}
neglecting small corrections from Fermi and Bose statistics.  To
completely specify our ensemble, we assume that fluctuations of these
state variables are statistically independent, so that
$\langle\Delta V\Delta T\rangle = \langle \Delta N_B\Delta T\rangle =
\langle\Delta N_B \Delta V\rangle \equiv 0.$
Observe that while this formulation gives the following the flavor of
a thermodynamic analysis, ours is not a static, global equilibrium
scenario.

Volume and thermal fluctuations cause the number of baryons and
antibaryons to fluctuate \cite{gp1}. In the absence of chemical
equilibrium, we write:
\begin{equation}
\Delta N = N\Delta V/V + \Delta N_{{}_{VT}},
\label{eq:eq5}\end{equation}
with a similar equation for antibaryons. The contribution $\Delta
N_{{}_{VT}}$ for constant $T$ and $V$ is (\ref{eq:eq1}).  Thermal
fluctuations do not change the conserved particle numbers, while
volume fluctuations add to (\ref{eq:eq1}). The variance is
\begin{equation}
{\cal V}_{\rm th} \equiv \sigma_{N}^2
=
N^2\sigma_V^2/V^2
+ N \approx N(1+N/N_{\rm tot}).
\label{eq:eq6}\end{equation}
We also compute the baryon-antibaryon covariance:
\begin{equation}
{\cal C}_{\rm th}
\equiv
\langle \Delta N \Delta\overline{N}\rangle
= N\overline{N}\sigma_V^2/V^2
\approx N\overline{N}/N_{\rm tot}.
\label{eq:eq9}\end{equation}
This result implies that given $N$ particles, the probability of
finding an antiparticle is $\overline{N}/N_{\rm tot}$.  The correction
to (\ref{eq:eq1}) and (\ref{eq:i4}) from volume fluctuations are of
order 4\%, since $N/N_{\rm tot}\sim 0.04$ for central Au+Au at RHIC.

In chemical equilibrium, the number of particles and antiparticles
obey:
\begin{equation}
\Delta N =
{{N\Delta V}\over{V}} +
\left({{\partial N}\over {\partial T}}\right)_{{}_{N_B}}
\!\!\!\!{\Delta T}
+
\left({{\partial N}\over {\partial N_B}}\right)_{{}_{T}}
\Delta N_B,
\label{eq:eq10}\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Delta \overline{N} =
{{{\overline N}\Delta V}\over{V}} +
\left({{\partial {\overline N}}\over {\partial T}}\right)_{{}_{N_B}}
\!\!\!\!\Delta T
+
\left({{\partial {\overline N}}\over {\partial N_B}}\right)_{{}_{T}}
\Delta N_B.
\label{eq:eq11}\end{equation}
where $(\partial N/\partial T)_{N_B}=(\partial \overline{N}/\partial
T)_{N_B}$ and $(\partial N/\partial N_B)_T-(\partial
\overline{N}/\partial N_B)_T = 1$.  In chemical equilibrium, thermal
fluctuations can change the baryon population by making pairs, so that
\begin{equation}
\left({{\partial N}\over {\partial T}}\right)_{{}_{N_B}}
= {{\partial N}\over {\partial T}}
- \left({{\partial N}\over {\partial \mu_B}}\right)
{{\partial N_B/\partial T}\over {\partial N_B/\mu_B}}.
\label{eq:eq12}\end{equation}
For an ideal gas,
\begin{equation}
\Delta N =
N{{\Delta V}\over{V}}
+{{2\epsilon N\overline{N}}\over {N +\overline{N}}}{{\Delta T}\over T}
+ {{N\Delta N_B}\over {N+\overline{N}}}
\label{eq:eq13}\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Delta \overline{N} =
\overline{N}{{\Delta V}\over{V}}
+{{2\epsilon N\overline{N}}\over {N +\overline{N}}}{{\Delta T}\over T}
- {{\overline{N}\Delta N_B}\over {N+\overline{N}}}.
\label{eq:eq13a}\end{equation}
where $\epsilon = E_{N}/NT \approx m/T + 3/2$ is
the energy per antibaryon per unit temperature.
We then obtain:
\begin{equation}
{\cal V}_{\rm ch} =
N^2{{\sigma_V^2}\over{V^2}} +
4\epsilon^2\left({{N\overline{N}}\over {N+\overline{N}}}\right)^2
{{\sigma_T^2}\over {T^2}}
+ {{N^2}\over {N+\overline{N}}}.
\label{eq:eq14}\end{equation}
For $N \gg \overline{N}$ we obtain (\ref{eq:eq6}).
The covariance is:
\begin{equation}
{\cal C}_{\rm ch} =
N\overline{N}{{\sigma_V^2}\over{V^2}}
+
4\epsilon^2\left({{N\overline{N}}\over{N+\overline{N}}}\right)^2
{{\sigma_T^2}\over{T^2}}
-
{{N\overline{N}}\over{N+\overline{N}}}
\label{eq:eq18}\end{equation}
The first terms in (\ref{eq:eq14}, \ref{eq:eq18}) are the volume
contributions encountered earlier. These terms are unchanged by
chemical equilibrium.  The second term accounts for the pairwise
production of baryons and antibaryons by thermal fluctuations. The
third term describes the net baryon number fluctuations discussed
earlier, see eq.~(\ref{eq:i4}).

At RHIC, $N\approx \overline{N}$ implies that both the baryon variance
and the baryon-antibaryon covariance markedly differ from the
nonequilibrium results. The sum of the volume and thermal terms is
roughly $1 + \epsilon^2/12\approx 5.5$ for chemical freezeout at $T =
160$~MeV and $m = 938$~MeV. The contribution from the first two terms
to either ${\cal V}_{\rm ch}/N^2$ or ${\cal C}_{\rm ch}/N\overline{N}$
is then $\sim 0.5\%$ for $N_{\rm tot} \sim 10^3$ as expected in Au+Au
collisions.  Baryon density fluctuations contribute $\sim +1.3\%$ to
the variance and $-1.3\%$ to the covariance for $\overline{N} \approx
N\approx 40$, yielding the totals ${\cal V}_{\rm ch}/N^2\sim 1.8\%$
and ${\cal C}_{\rm ch}/N\overline{N}\sim -0.8\%$.  Observe that the
chemical nonequilibrium results (\ref{eq:eq6}, \ref{eq:eq9}) give
values $\sim 2.5\%$ and $+0.1\%$ for the relative variance and
covariance; we expect participant nucleon models to yield similar
values. We will see that that these small percentage-differences
amount to quite large changes in the magnitudes of these quantities.

We comment that particle ratios, such as $N/N_{\rm tot}$, are often
measured in place of absolute yields. Variances of ratios do not
contain the contribution from volume fluctuations found e.g., in
(\ref{eq:eq6}) and (\ref{eq:eq14}). However, experimenters must
carefully construct ratios from $N$ and $N_{\rm tot}$ from data
measured over the full kinematic ranges of these particles in order to
fully cancel the volume fluctuations and to suppress new fluctuations
due to systematic shifts in the spectra.  The distinction between
ratios and yields is minor, however, since we find that volume
fluctuations are the smallest of the contributions treated here.

To account for additional sources of fluctuations in heavy ion
collisions, we incorporate these general results into the Monte Carlo
event generator for correlated signals developed in \cite{gp1}.
There, we assume that the rapidity densities $N$, $\overline N$ and
$N_{\rm tot}$ can be described by a thermal ensemble at each impact
parameter $b$, with fluctuations occurring about the well defined mean
values obtained below. We then generate events, choosing the values of
$\overline{N}_i$ and $N_{i}$ for the $i^{\rm th}$ event using
(\ref{eq:eq5}), (\ref{eq:eq10}, \ref{eq:eq11}), or (\ref{eq:fluct3}),
depending on whether the system is in thermal equilibrium, chemical
equilibrium, or in between.  To simulate the centrality dependence of
ion collisions, we distribute events in $b$ according to a wounded
nucleon model with realistic nuclear density profiles.

We compute the mean rapidity densities of protons and antiprotons for
Au+Au at RHIC using the wounded nucleon model relations,
\begin{equation}
N \approx n{\cal N}(b)/{\cal N}(0),
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\overline{N} \approx \overline{n}{\cal N}(b)/{\cal N}(0),
\label{eq:pbar}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal N}(b)$ is the number of participant nucleons. We take
values of the rapidity density at zero impact parameter $n \approx
\overline{n} \approx 40$ for both baryons and antibaryons. Such values
are consistent with the range of event generator predictions: HIJING,
HIJING/$B{\overline B}$ (its successor) and RQMD report rapidity
densities of 60, 20 and 20 respectively. [Note that we will use
(\ref{eq:pbar}) to provide initial conditions when we consider partial
equilibrium effects, see eq.~(\ref{eq:ans2}).]  We then compute the
average charged particle multiplicity for each event assuming a
Gaussian distribution with an average value $N_{\rm tot}(b) = N_{\rm
  tot}(0){\cal N}(b)/{\cal N}(0)$ and a standard deviation
$\sigma_{\rm tot} = \sqrt{N_{\rm tot}}$ consistent with thermal
equilibrium. The scale $N_{\rm tot}(0) = 2100$ is determined by the
initial production regardless of event class, in accord with entropy
and energy conservation; the particular value is taken from a HIJING
simulation in the STAR acceptance.

The negative covariance that signals chemical equilibrium is not
destroyed by volume, thermal, finite-acceptance, or impact-parameter
fluctuations.  In fig.~1, we show the proton variance and
proton-antiproton covariance computed from $10^6$ events in the STAR
acceptance assuming that chemical equilibrium is complete. Such an
event sample can be accumulated in roughly twelve days of STAR running
and can provide a statistically significant determination of $\cal{C}$
and $\cal{V}$ as functions of the multiplicity. Chemical equilibrium
fluctuations are computed using (\ref{eq:eq10}, \ref{eq:eq11}).  Our
results shown by the solid curves are strikingly different from
thermal equilibrium expectations -- the long-dashed curves -- obtained
from eq.~(\ref{eq:eq5}) at the same density.  Incorporated in our
simulation is an important non-thermal source of fluctuations that
results from impact parameter averaging, as discussed in \cite{gp1}.
These ``background'' fluctuations, shown as the short-dashed curves,
result from the binning of the variances and covariance as functions
of multiplicity.
\begin{figure}
\vskip -0.35in
\epsfxsize=4.5in
\centerline{\epsffile{varFig1.ps}}
\vskip -0.25in
\caption[]{
  Proton variance (top) and proton-antiproton covariance (bottom) for
  a chemical equilibrium state in RHIC Au+Au. The signature of
  baryon-density fluctuations -- the negative correlation -- remains
  striking in the covariance, despite competition from thermal,
  volume, and impact-parameter fluctuations.}
\end{figure}

Having found that chemical equilibrium for baryons can have observable
consequences, we now ask whether these particles approach chemical
equilibrium in the first place. To be concrete, we suppose that
baryons, antibaryons and other hadrons form at a proper time $\tau_0$
from the hadronization of a quark gluon plasma. These baryons can then
scatter and annihilate, while reactions such as $\rho\omega
\rightarrow N\overline{N}$ produce new baryons.  Chemical equilibrium
is obtained when the annihilation rate precisely matches the creation
rate.

To describe the approach to equilibrium, we extend the kinetic model
of \cite{ggpv} to include meson-meson production in the following
schematic fashion.  We take the antibaryon and baryon density to
satisfy the approximate kinetic equation:
\begin{equation}
\left({{d}\over{d\tau}}+{{1}\over \tau}\right)n
= -\langle \sigma_a v_{\rm rel}\rangle\left(n {\overline n} - n_{\rm eq}
{\overline n}_{\rm eq}\right)
\label{eq:k1}\end{equation}
together with baryon number conservation. Again we assume a
Bjorken-like expansion. Detailed balance for $N\overline{N}
\rightleftharpoons$~mesons fixes the product of the chemical
equilibrium densities $n_{\rm eq} {\overline n}_{\rm eq}$ in terms of
the meson densities. Note that this relaxation-time approximation
strictly holds only when the initial baryon, antibaryon and meson
densities are sufficiently close to local chemical equilibrium values.

In terms of the rapidity densities ${\overline N}$ and $N$, we write
\cite{ggpv}:
\begin{equation}
\tau{{dN}/{d\tau}} \approx
-\gamma~\{N {\overline N} - N_{\rm eq} {\overline N}_{\rm eq}\}.
\label{eq:k3}\end{equation}
Baryon conservation implies $N - \overline{N} = N_B$.  The coefficient
$\gamma = \langle \sigma_a v_{\rm rel}\rangle {\cal A}^{-1}$
depends on the collision frequency.  In \cite{ggpv}, we
used the measured energy-dependent annihilation cross section to
compute $\langle \sigma_a v_{\rm rel}\rangle\approx $~4.4~fm$^2$. We
take $\overline{N}_{\rm eq}$ to be a $\tau$-independent parameter to
be varied over a range of plausible values. This assumption is reasonable
for $N$, $\overline{N}\ll N_{\rm tot}$, since the change in the meson
populations due to baryon annihilation is then negligible.

\begin{figure}
\vskip -0.35in
\epsfxsize=4.0in
\centerline{\epsffile{eqTime.ps}}
\vskip -0.30in
\caption[]{
  The rapid approach to chemical equilibrium of the proton rapidity
  density (top) and variance (bottom) as functions of the freezeout
  time $\tau_F$ for $N_{\rm eq} > N_0$, (a) and (b), and for $N_{\rm
    eq} < N_0$.  Hadron formation occurs at $\tau_0 = 8$~fm.}
\end{figure}
To solve (\ref{eq:k3}), observe that $N(\tau)$ will increase toward
$N_{\rm eq}$ depending on whether the right hand side of (\ref{eq:k3})
is positive or negative. Growing solutions are obtained if the initial
rapidity density $N_0$ satisfies $N_0 < N_{\rm eq}$, i.e., if the
ratio
\begin{equation}
\theta = {{N_{\rm eq} - N_0}\over
          {N_{\rm eq} + N_0 - N_B}}
\label{eq:ans1}\end{equation}
is greater than zero. The solution is then:
\begin{equation}
N = {{N_B}\over{2}} +
\left(N_{\rm eq} - {{N_B}\over{2}} \right)
{{1 - \theta S}\over{1 + \theta S}}
\label{eq:ans2}\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
S =  (\tau_0/\tau_F)^{\gamma(2N_{\rm eq}-N_B)},
\label{eq:ans3}\end{equation}
with chemical freezeout occurring at $\tau_F$.  If $\theta \ll 1$
then annihilation reduces the antiproton-to-proton ratio as in
\cite{ggpv}. The evolution of $N$ toward chemical equilibrium is shown
in figs.~2a and 2c for $N_{\rm eq} > N_0$ and $N_{\rm eq} < N_0$,
respectively.

To estimate fluctuations in the nonequilbrium state, we write the following
ansatz:
\begin{equation}
{\cal V} =
S{\cal V}_{\rm th}
+
(1-S){\cal V}_{\rm ch},
\label{eq:fluct3}\end{equation}
where ${\cal V}_{\rm th}$ and ${\cal V}_{\rm ch}$ respectively satisfy
(\ref{eq:eq6}) and (\ref{eq:eq14}).  To motivate this ansatz, we
consider the variance as a function of $\tau$ and linearize for $N$
near $N_{\rm ch}$, as is standard \cite{LL}.  We find ${\cal V}\sim
{\cal V}_{\rm ch} + 2 N_{\rm eq}(N(\tau)-N_{\rm eq})$. Differentiating
and using (\ref{eq:k3}), we see that $\tau d{\cal V}/d\tau \approx 2\kappa
{\cal V}$, where $\kappa \sim d(\log N) /d(\log \tau)\sim -\gamma$.
The ansatz (\ref{eq:fluct3}) has the correct long- and short-scale
time dependence to linear order, satisfies the appropriate boundary
conditions for $\tau$ near zero and infinity and has plausible
behavior for intermediate $\tau$. The ansatz
\begin{equation}
{\cal C} =
S{\cal C}_{\rm th}
+
(1-S){\cal C}_{\rm ch},
\label{eq:fluct4}\end{equation}
is similarly plausible.

\begin{figure}
\vskip -0.35in
\epsfxsize=4.5in
\centerline{\epsffile{varFig3.ps}}
\vskip -0.25in
\caption[]{
  Proton variance (top) and covariance (bottom) for a partial chemical
  equilibrium state in RHIC Au+Au compared to complete chemical
  (dot-dashed) and thermal equilibrium (long dashed) expectations for
  the same $N$ and $\overline N$. }
\end{figure}
To appreciate the speed with which equilibration takes place, we show
the calculated approach to chemical equilibrium of $N$ and $\cal V$ in
fig.~2. We assume that hadronization proceeds from a thermalized quark
gluon plasma and, correspondingly, take $\tau_0 = 8$~fm. The initial
values $N_0 \approx \overline{N}_0$ are taken from (\ref{eq:pbar}) for
$b=0$. The chemical freezeout time is varied up to a value
$\tau_F \approx 14$~fm, a plausible value for central Au+Au at RHIC.
For this figure we take ad hoc values for $N_{\rm eq} \approx
\overline{N}_{\rm eq}$ to illustrate the approach to equilibrium from
above and below.  Equilibration is rapid because the annihilation
cross section and baryon rapidity densities are sufficiently large
that the ratio of the collision time to the expansion time scale
satisfies $\tau_{\rm coll}/ \tau_{\rm exp}\sim (2\gamma N_{\rm
  eq})^{-1} < 1$.

The variance and covariance computed for the STAR acceptance using
$10^6$ events simulated according to our partial equilibrium solution
are shown in fig.~3.  Rapidity densities are computed using
(\ref{eq:ans1} - \ref{eq:ans3}) for initial rapidity densities from
(\ref{eq:pbar}). In these calculations, we take the ad hoc value
$N_{\rm eq} = 50$ for central collisions and assume $N_{\rm eq}$
scales with the number of participants.  The chemical freezeout time
is computed for each impact parameter using $\tau_F = R/v_s +
\tau_p$, where $R = ({\cal A}/\pi)^{1/2}$ is the geometric transverse
radius, $v_s = 1/\sqrt{3}$ is the sound speed and $\tau_p \approx
1$~fm is a limiting value for peripheral collisions set by the proton
size. Using these values, fluctuations are simulated in accord with
(\ref{eq:fluct3}, \ref{eq:fluct4}).  We again take the formation time
for hadrons to be $\tau_0 = 8$~fm independent of $b$. Note that for
values $\tau_0 \sim 5$~fm or smaller, chemical equilibration is
practically complete for impact parameters smaller than 10~fm.

We now ask if such fluctuations can survive freezeout. If chemical
freezeout occurs before thermal freezeout, then baryons can suffer
elastic collisions with other hadrons after chemical fluctuations are
no longer possible.  Such scattering can restore $\cal C$ and $\cal V$
to thermal equilibrium values. To estimate the size of this effect, we
assume that those baryons and antibaryons that do not scatter
elastically contribute to fluctuations at the level of ${\cal V}_{\rm
  ch}$ and ${\cal C}_{\rm ch}$, while baryons that scatter once or
more are instantly thermalized. We then write \cite{rio},
\begin{equation}
{\cal V} \sim {\cal P}{\cal V}_{\rm ch} + (1-{\cal P}){\cal V}_{\rm th}
\label{eq:fo1}
\end{equation}
where the survival probability for elastic scattering is
\begin{equation}
{\cal P} \sim {\rm e}^{-\int_{\tau_F}^\infty dt \;\sigma v_{\rm rel}
n_{\rm tot}(\vec{r}+\vec{v}t, t)},
\label{eq:fo2}
\end{equation}
for $n_{\rm tot}$ the hadron density, $\sigma$ the elastic
scattering cross section and $v_{\rm rel}$ the relative velocity. Pions
dominate the late-time dynamics, so that $\sigma \approx
\sigma_{\pi N}\approx 20$~mb. To estimate $\cal P$,
we assume that after chemical freezeout the meson and baryon
distributions are described by spherically symmetric Gaussian
profiles for both position and velocity. Averaging over these
distributions, we find
$0.8 < {\cal P} < 0.9$ for central collisions,
assuming $n_{\rm tot}(\tau_F)\approx
0.1$~fm$^{-3}$ and $1 < v_s\tau_F/R < 2$.

These calculations suggest that scattering after chemical freezeout
increases the chemical equilibrium variances and covariance by less
than $20\%$. Scattering at that level is not likely to wipe out the
large chemical fluctuations in figs.~1 and 3.  Furthermore, UrQMD
calculations suggest that chemical freezeout for baryons at RHIC may
occur much later than we have assumed \cite{urqmdHydro}.  In that
case, we expect rescattering to be completely negligible.

In summary, we have found that baryon density fluctuations lead to
striking correlations of protons and antiprotons if RHIC collisions
approach chemical equilibrium.  Measurements of the variance and
covariance of these species can reveal these correlations, even if
equilibration is incomplete and chemical freezeout precedes thermal
freezeout. We have not examined how the $\overline{p}$ and $p$
measurements are altered by resonance decays or hyperon contributions
(see \cite{JeonKoch} for a discussion of resonances in another
context). In addition, we have neglected mean field and coulomb
effects, which modify correlations over times $\gg \tau_F$.  Such
effects are important when the momentum dependence of
correlations is resolved in an HBT-like analysis, see
e.g.~\cite{pratt} and refs. therein. Our effect contributes
pre-freezeout correlations, often neglected in HBT discussions.

We are grateful to R. Bellwied, P. Fachini, A. Makhlin, R. Venugopalan
and N. Xu for discussions.  S.G. thanks the nuclear theory group at
Brookhaven National Laboratory for hospitality during part of this
work. This work is supported in part by the U.S. DOE grant
DE-FG02-92ER40713.


\section{Introduction}
The Heisenberg antiferromagnet (HAF) in two dimensions has
been widely studied in the last decade from several
viewpoints. One main motivation for this study has been
the possibility of encountering novel ordered and disordered
groundstates.  The nearest neighbour HAF on the
 \kagome lattice (NNKLAF)
is one system which is expected to show such
interesting behaviour. This model has been studied
experimentally,  \cite {town}- \cite{orb}  and
theoretically, \cite{chub} - \cite{thesis}, through
several methods and is expected to have
a spin disordered ground state. An interesting,
recent study is an exact spectra analysis
\cite {phil}
 of finite sized $ J_1 - J_2$ model on the \kagome
lattice shows
that as $J_2 \rightarrow 0$,
there is a spin disordered groundstate  with a gap for excitations
with spin. This gap is filled with a large number of closely
spaced singlet excitations which could collapse to the ground state
in the limit of the system size tending to infinity.

An approach to the problem of two dimensional
antiferromagnets which has yielded very good
results is through  a field theoretical sigma model description
such as has been developed in \cite{halperin,domb,azaria}.
 The sigma
model describes the large amplitude, long wavelength fluctuations of
the spin system. It is therefore capable of modelling the ordered and
the disordered phases of the system. Its validity
only requires the existence of
short range spin order.
The application of this method to develop the field
theory for the \kagome antiferromagnet has
been described in
\cite {first,thesis}. This is the method that we use
here  to determine the phases of the $J_1 - J_2
$ model on the \kagome lattice and in particular
to understand the ground state and low energy
spectrum of the NNKLAF.

Among the several families of Kagom\'e lattice antiferromagnets studied
experimentally are the jarosites and the magnetoplumbite like compound
$SrCr_{8-x}Ga_{4+x}O_{19}$. In these compounds
additional, next to nearest
neighbour and interplanar, couplings seem to
stabilise one or the other of the planar states.
Because of this the compounds fall into two groups.
In the iron jarosites, $KFe_3(OH)_6 (XO_4)_2$
with $X=S$ or $Cr$ \cite{town} and in $KCr_3(OD)_6(SO_4)_2$ \cite{lee} which
realise $S={5\over 2}$ and $S={3\over 2}$ \kagome
lattice antiferromagnets respectively, ${\bf q}=0$
long range order has been observed. In the other group made up of
deuteronium jarosite,
$D_3OFe_3(OH)_6(SO_4)_2$ ($S={5\over 2}$ ) \cite{wills} and
$SrCr_{8-x}Ga_{4+x}O_19$ ($S={3 \over 2}$ ) \cite{orb},
short ranged $\sqrt 3 \times \sqrt 3$ order is found. In addition it is observed in
these two compounds that the low temperature specific heat
has a $T^2$ behaviour.
The usual interpretation of such a behaviour is that there are gapless excitations in the low energy spectrum.
Such a gapless excitation is usually a Goldstone
mode
resulting from the breaking of some continuous
symmetry in the model. In this case the symmetry
that can be broken is the $SO(3)$ spin rotational
symmetry of the hamiltonian.
However the neutron scattering experiments show that
there is only short ranged $\sqrt 3 \times \sqrt 3 $
order in the groundstate thereby negating this possibility.
Therefore there is no direct explanation for the
low temperature specific heat data.

There is an explanation for this puzzle, which we have explored in
\cite{first}, where we give the mechanism for getting a gapless mode
even in systems where all the symmetries of the microscopic Hamiltonian
are intact and there is no long range antiferromagnetic order.Namely that the low energy theory acquires
an extra continuous symmetry which is not present
in the microscopic model and this symmetry breaks,
giving rise to a gapless boson. This is what we call
a hidden Goldstone mechanism. We work
out this mechanism in detail for the $J_1 - J_2$ model described below
and analyse the phases as the ratio, $\chi \equiv \frac{J_2}{J_1}$, is
varied.

 This model is defined by the Hamiltonian,

\begin{equation}
H~=~J_1\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}\vec S_i.\vec S_j~-~
 J_2\sum_{\{ ij \}}\vec S_i.\vec S_j
\label{ham}
\end{equation}
Where $<i,j>$ implies that i and j belong to neighbouring
sites and $\{i,j\}$ implies that i and j belong are next to nearest
neighbours.
For positive value of the next neighbour coupling
$J_2$ the $\sqrt 3 \times \sqrt 3 $ state is picked out from among the
numerous degenerate groundstates of the classical NNKLAF.
We write down a field theory
in terms of the
five relevant fields, which we identify from a preliminary spin wave analysis
of this model. This theory is an improvement on
the spin wave analysis since this allows for large
amplitude fluctuations of these five parameters.
The theory is symmetric under $SO(3)_R \times SO(2)_L$,
 where the $SO(3)_R$ is the spin rotation symmetry of the
Hamiltonian
and the $SO(2)_L$ is a special symmetry of the effective low energy action.
We analyse this field theory using the large N expansion described
in \cite {polyabk} and identify
that there are two phase transitions as we move towards $J_2 =0$, which
is the case of the NNKLAF. With reference to figure
(\ref{phases}), for large $\chi$,
we find that the system is in the
planar spiral phase, the ground state is the $\sqrt 3 \times \sqrt
3$ state and the low lying excitations about this state are the three
gapless, magnons. In terms of the field theory this involves the
symmetry
breaking pattern  $SO(3)_R \times SO(2)_L \rightarrow SO(2)_L $.
Reducing $J_2$,  thereby reducing $\chi$, takes us into a
completely disordered phase where all the symmetries are intact. Further
reducing $J_2$ takes us into the non-coplanar phase where the symmetry breaking pattern
is $SO(3)_R \times SO(2)_L \rightarrow SO(3)_R $. In this phase, since
the $SO(3)_R$ symmetry is intact, all correlations of vector and tensor operators
constructed out of the spins are short ranged and because of the
breaking of the $SO(2)_L$ symmetry, there is one gapless, spin singlet goldstone mode.
For reasons that will be clear later we call this the non-coplanar phase
At the lattice level this $SO(2)_L$ symmetry manifests itself as a
discrete symmetry
of rotation by $2\pi/3$ followed by a translation by one lattice vector
and at the level of the low energy long wavelength effective action
 this gets enhanced to a continuous
symmetry. The theme of this paper is how this hidden Goldstone mechanism
gives an explanation of the behaviour of the group two compounds.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section (\ref{secgs}), we describe the $\vec K =0 $ spinwave
analysis and
isolate the five relevant low energy modes. In
section (\ref{secparam}), we extend the description
of these low lying modes to include large fluctuations so that the five parameters regroup into a $SU(2) $
matrix valued field and a unit vector field. In section
(\ref {secop}), we describe the transformation of these fields under the symmetry operations described above.
In section(\ref{secftandphases}) we describe the
effective field theory which describes the model
and has been derived in \cite{first}
and show that there are three distinct phases in the
$J_1 - J_2$ \kagome lattice model. The details of these phases, in particular the non-coplanar
phase at  $\chi =0$ are described in section
(\ref{secphases}). Section (\ref{seccorr}) contains
details of the behaviour of the correlation functions in this
important phase and section (\ref{secconclu}) contains a
discussion of our results in the context of
earlier numerical studies.
\section{Ground state and low energy modes}
\label{secgs}
The model that we consider in this paper is the Heisenberg hamiltonian on the Kagom\'e
lattice with nearest neighbour antiferromagnetic coupling with strength $J_1$ and
next nearest neighbour couplings with strength $
J_2 = \chi J_1$. This is the model defined in equation (\ref {ham}).
The two types
of bonds are illustrated in figure ({\ref
{bonds}}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\hspace{-2cm}
\epsffile{bonds.eps}
\caption{In the figure the dashed lines refer to bonds of strength
$J_2 = \stackrel{~}{\chi} J_1$ and the bold lines to bonds of strength $J_1$.}
\label{bonds}
\end {figure}
The hamiltonian
can be rewritten (upto additive constants) as,
\begin{equation}
{H \over J_1}~=~{1 \over 2}\sum_{\Delta}(\sum_{it}\vec S_{it})^2
~-~\chi {1 \over 2}\sum_{\Delta^\prime}(\sum_{it^\prime}\vec S_{it^\prime})^2
\label{ham1}
\end{equation}
where, $\Delta$ denotes the nearest neighbour triangles and $it$ their three vertices.
$\Delta^\prime$ denotes the next nearest neighbour triangles that lie in the hexagons
and $it^\prime$ their vertices. It is clear from equation (\ref{ham1}) that
 for all $\chi > 0$, the
energy is minimised when the magnetisation of all the nearest neighbour triangles is
zero and that of all the next nearest neighbour triangles is the maximum possible. This
occurs for the $\sqrt 3 \times \sqrt 3$ state shown in figure ({\ref{rootthree}}).

   In order to identify the lowest
lying excitations about this ground state, we
do a spinwave analysis. In this analysis we
treat the quantum fluctuations as rotations
of the classical spin vectors, thereby mapping
the spin variables $\vec S_j $
on to bosonic variables $P_j $ and $Q_j$.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\hspace{-2cm}
\epsfxsize = 8cm
\epsffile{rootthree.eps}
\caption{The figure shows the $\sqrt 3 \times \sqrt 3 $ state
superposed on the Kagome lattice , where one choice
for A,B and C is $\vec S_A =(1,0,0), \vec S_B
= (\frac{-1}{2}, \frac{\sqrt 3}{2}, 0), \vec S_C
=(\frac{-1}{2}, \frac{-\sqrt{3}}{2}, 0) $.
}
\label{rootthree}
\end {figure}
In order to do this we rewrite the spins $\vec S_j$ as,
\beq
\vec {S_j} = e^{\frac { -i w_j ^a T^a}{\sqrt
S}} {\vec S_j
^{cl}}
\label{spin1}\eeq
where the $T^a$ are the three generators of $SU(2)$
in the spin 1 representation. The
$w_j^a = P_j E_j ^a +Q_j Z^a $ , $P_j$
and $Q_j$ being bosonic operators obeying the
commutation rules $[P_j, Q_{j'}] = -i \hbar \delta _
{j,j'}$.
${\vec S_j^{cl}} = S \hat n_j$, where the  $\hat n
_j$ are arranged according to the $\sqrt 3
\times \sqrt 3 $ configuration and the set
$\{\hat n_j , \hat E_j , \hat Z \}$ form an
orthogonal triad at each site.
Thereafter, for small fluctuations, putting these definitions
into equation (\ref{spin1}) and expanding to order $\frac{1}{S}$
, we get,
\beq
\vec S_j = S\hat n_j ( 1 - \frac{P_j^2 + Q_j^2}
{2S}) + \sqrt S \hat E_j P_j + \sqrt S \hat Z
Q_j
\label{spin2}\eeq

Before proceeding, we notice that
the lattice splits into magnetic unit cells consisting
of 9 points each
because of the periodicity of the lattice
and the $\sqrt 3 \times \sqrt 3 $ groundstate
. Therefore we expand our
notation a bit, and replace  $\vec S_j $
equivalently by  $ \vec S_{Jj\beta}$. In this
notation every lattice index j is replaced
by one unit cell index such as J and  two
sublattice indices $(j,\beta)$. This labelling
is shown in figure (\ref {ucell2}) which also
shows the structure of each unit cell.
We make such an expansion of $S_{Jj\beta}$
as in equation (\ref{spin2}) , keeping upto
quadratic terms in the P and Q. We finally
get  the fluctuations hamiltonian in terms
of the Fourier transformed variables $P_{Kj\beta}$ and $Q_{Kj\beta}$, which are defined as
follows.
\beqar
P_{Kj\beta}&=& \frac{1}{N} \sum _{J} P_{Jj\beta}
e ^{-i {\vec X_J}.{\vec K}} \nonumber \\
Q_{Kj\beta}&=& \frac{1}{N} \sum _{J} Q_{Jj\beta}
e ^{-i {\vec X_J}.{\vec K}} \nonumber \\
\eeqar
In terms of the ${\bf P_K }$ and ${\bf Q_K}$ the
hamiltonian reduces to a $9 \times 9 $ block
which is given by,
\begin{equation}
H_{sw}~=~{1 \over 2} \sum _{\bf K}
 {\bf P_{-K}^T}M^{-1}
{\bf P_{K}}~+~{1 \over 2} {\bf Q_{-K}^T}K
{\bf Q_{K}}
\label{sw0}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\hspace{-2cm}
\epsfxsize = 7.5cm
\epsffile{ucell2.eps}
\caption{ }
\label{ucell2}
\end {figure}

The eigenvalues and the eigenvectors
of these
matrix $\Omega ^2 = M^{-1} K$ for $\vec K = 0$ give the gaps and
normal modes of the system of oscillators.
These  matrices are given in
the appendix (A). The
9 eigenvectors of $\Omega ^2 $, denoted by $\phi _{j \beta}$
 are given by $\phi_{j \beta} = e_j \times
e_{\beta}$,
where,
\beqar
 e_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt 3} (1,1,1) \nonumber \\
 e_1 = \frac{1}{\sqrt 3} (1,\alpha,\alpha ^2)
\nonumber \\
 e_2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt 3} (1,\alpha^2,\alpha)
\eeqar
The eigenvalues corresponding to the eigenvectors $\phi
_{j\beta}$ are $\omega^2_{j\beta}$. These fall into three
groups.
$\omega ^2 _{00} = \omega^2_{01} = \omega^2_{02} = 0$,
$\omega^2_{11} = \omega^2_{22} = 18\chi (3\chi +1)$ and
$\omega^2_{10} = \omega^2_{12} = \omega^2_{20} = \omega^2_{21}
= 36 \chi ^2 + 25 \chi + 9/2$.  Accordingly, we classify
the first three modes as S-S modes since they are soft
for all $\chi$, the second pair as H-S modes since they
are gapless for $\chi = 0$ and hard for $\chi \not = 0 $
and the last four as the H-H modes as they are hard for
all $\chi$. In the large $\chi $ regime the S-S modes are the
only relevant modes, while we need to take both the S-S modes
and the H-S modes into consideration to describe low energy
physics in the small $\chi $ domain.

\section{Parametrisation of large amplitude
fluctuations.}
\label{secparam}
In this section, starting from the expression for the normal
modes of the $\vec K =0$ spinwave hamiltonian, we develop
a parametrisation of the S-S and H-S modes for large amplitude
fluctuations. These five modes, since they are gapless at the
NNKLAF end, will govern the  low energy physics, both at the NNKLAF
end and close to it, i.e for small  $\chi$ .
For $\chi =0$, some of these modes are
 dispersionless. This arises from the possibility of having local
fluctuations about line defects and have been discussed in
\cite {chalk}.

From the expression in equation (\ref{spin1}) for the spins,
putting in the forms of the eigenmodes for the five relevant
modes as expressions for the $P_{j \beta} $ and
$Q_{j\beta}$, we observe that for $\vec K =0$, all
the modes satisfy $
\vec S_1 + \vec S_2 + \vec S_3 = \Delta \vec S = 0$, for the
spins $\vec S_1 , \vec S_2, \vec S_3$ lying on a triangular plaquette.
For the dispersionless H-S modes, this identity continues to
hold for $\vec K \not = 0$.

At the spin wave level, the expansion of  $ \vec S_{j \beta}$
to order $\frac{1}{S}$ indicates that  we are looking at
small fluctuations about the classical ordered configuration.
For the purposes of the field theory we need to parametrise large amplitude fluctuations of these relevant modes. We now
proceed to do this.

Though an
exact treatment would involve deriving this
for $\vec K \not = 0$, we use the zero $\vec K$
expressions as an approximation. This is valid
because we are interested only in the long
wavelength excitations.

If the 9 spins of the unit cell may be thought of
as a rigid unit, the three S-S modes correspond
to the rotation of this unit about the three
co-ordinate axes. This set of three modes can
therefore be parametrised by a unitary matrix
$U_J$, which brings about this rotation from
the ground state configuration to the body fixed
frame of the rigid body. This is the usual
interpretation given to the gapless Goldstone modes
that occur in antiferromagnetic models.

Since the H-S modes cost zero energy at $\chi =0$,
 they must leave the relative angles between the
spins on each triangle intact. They could however,
distort the angles between neighbouring triangles.
Hence they create
non planar configurations within the unit cell.
We can parameterise these configurations as follows,
\begin{equation}
\vec S _{Jj\beta} = V^{\dagger}_{Jj} \hat n _{\beta}
\label{hsparam0}
\end{equation}
$V_{Jj}$ are rotation matrices that rotate the three
spins (labelled by $\beta$) belonging to each
$\sqrt 7 \times \sqrt 7 $ triangle
(labelled by the same $j$) rigidly. They are not independent of
each other but are constrained by the fact that the
inter-unit cell triangles are also not distorted. It is
difficult to solve for these constraints exactly. However,
we can use the eigenfunctions of the H-S modes to obtain
the following, approximate, solution.
\begin{equation}
V_{Jj} = \exp ^{i\frac{2\pi}{3}j T^{3}}\exp ^{i
\frac{\pi}{3}\hat m _J . \vec T}\exp ^{-i\frac{2\pi}{3}j T^{3}} \exp ^{-i\frac{\pi}{3} T^3}
\label{hsparam}\end{equation}
When $\hat m = \hat z$, $V_{Jj}$ reduces to the identity
matrix and the spin configuration is undistorted. When
$\hat m$ deviates from the z-axis, we can show that the
configurations produced by equations (\ref{hsparam0})
 and (\ref{hsparam}) are,
upto quadratic order in the deviations, zero energy configurations
in the $\chi \rightarrow 0$ limit. We therefore use equations
(\ref{hsparam0}) and (\ref{hsparam}) to approximate
the long wavelength,
large amplitude fluctuations of the H-S modes.

If the spins on the unit cell form a rigid unit and
if the ground state configuration is thought of as
a space fixed frame, then the S-S modes,
parametrised by the $U_J$, rotate the spins to the
body fixed frame. further the $V_{Jj}$ cause a
rotation in this body fixed frame, whose magnitude
and direction are decided by $\hat m$ which is
a vector in this body fixed frame. $\vec S_{Jj\beta}$ is
therefore given by,
\begin{equation}
\vec S _{Jj\beta} = U^{\dagger} _{J} V^{\dagger}
_{Jj} \hat n _{\beta}
\end{equation}

\section{Order parameters and symmetries.}
\label{secop}

Now that we have a  parametrisation of the large
amplitude fluctuations of the five relevant modes,
it is necessary to look at the symmetries of the
microscopic model and how they act on the fields
$U_J$ and $\hat m _J$. There are two important
groups of transformations which leave the hamiltonian
 invariant. The first is a global $SO(3)$ group of
rotations  of each spin under the transformation
\beq
S^a _{Jj\beta} \rightarrow \Omega
 _R  ^{\dagger ab} S_{Jj\beta} ^{b}
\eeq

Since this is an overall rotation of the spins
with respect to the space fixed frame, this simply
adds on to the matrix $U_J$ and leaves $\hat m_J$
invariant, thus,
\beqar
U_J  \rightarrow U_J \Omega _R \nonumber \\
\hat m _J \rightarrow \hat m _J
\eeqar

Secondly, the hamiltonian is invariant under the
rotation of each spin by $\frac{2\pi}{3}$ followed
by a unit translation.Under this transformation the
spins transform as follows,
\beq
S^a_{Jj\beta} \rightarrow R^{\beta \beta'} S^a_{Jj\beta'}
\eeq
 In the continuum limit
this shows up as a combination of $U(1)$
rotations in both the space fixed frame and in
the body fixed frame, under which the fields transform as
follows,

\beqar
U_J \rightarrow \Omega _L U _J \nonumber \\
\hat m_J \rightarrow \Omega _L \hat m_J
\eeqar
Looking at the way these rotations act on $U_J$,
we call them $SO(3)_R $ and $SO(2)_L$ rotations
respectively.

As mentioned in the previous section, the H-S modes
create non-coplanar configurations in the NNKLAF. This
is contrary to the effect of the S-S modes which
 are rigid rotations of the spins of the unit cell.
Hence the  effect of the H-S modes may be measured
by defining an order parameter that leaves the
spins on the triangular plaquettes rigid, yet
distorting the planarity of adjoining triangles.
A suitable candidate is the scalar triple product
of three spins lying in a row on each unit cell.

We show in section (\ref{seccorr}) which follows,
that  this is a suitable order parameter with
which to describe the phases of the NNKLAF.

\section {Field theory and phases.}
\label{secftandphases}
In our previous work, \cite{first}, we have derived
the long wavelength, low energy field theory describing
the deformed triangular antiferromagnet close to the
Kagom\'e lattice limit. Based on the same considerations
the same field theory would also describe
the $J_1 - J_2 $ model on the Kagom\'e lattice for
$J_2 $ close to zero. This action is given by the expression,

\begin{equation}
S[\phi^a_{~r},\hat m] = \int d^3x~\partial_\mu\phi^a_{~r}\partial_\mu\phi^a_{~r}
                       ~+~{1 \over g_2}\partial_\mu\hat m.\partial_\mu\hat m
                       ~+~V(m^z)
\label{action1}
\end{equation}
Along with the constraint,
\begin{equation}
\sum _{r}\phi^a_{~r}\phi^b_{~r}~=~{1 \over g_1}(1+f(m^z))\delta_{ab}
\label{cons}
\end{equation}
The interaction is built into the constraint which
puts $\phi ^a _r = \sqrt {\frac{1}{g_1} (1 + f(m^z))}
 \Phi _r ^a $,
where the fields $\Phi _r ^a $ make up the columns of the matrix U
and the function $f(m^z) = \alpha (1 - (m^z)^2)$.
The potential $V(m^z) = \lambda _0 ((m^z)^2 - \eta _0) ^2$.
The parameters $\alpha , \lambda _0 , \eta _0 $ and
g are all functions of $\chi$.

In \cite{first}, we had shown that when $g_1$ is in the strong
coupling regime and $g_2$ in the weak coupling regime, there exists a phase
where the $SO(3)_R$ symmetry is unbroken and the $SO(2)_L$ is broken. We now give
a simple large N formalism where the physics of this regime can be analysed in
a systematic 1/N expansion.

The large N formalism we use is of the standard type used to analyse disordered
phases of non-linear $\sigma$ models \cite{polyabk}. $\phi^a_{~r}$ can be thought
of as a set of three orthogonal 3 dimensional vectors. This is generalised to
a set of three orthogonal N dimensional vectors. We denote them by $\phi^a_{~r}$,
where $a~=~1,2,\dots ,  N$ and $r~=~1,2,3$. The coupling constants in the
model are defined to scale with N as follows. $g_{1(2)} \rightarrow g_{1(2)}/N,
~\alpha \rightarrow N\alpha$ and $\lambda_0 \rightarrow N\lambda_0$. This results
in the RHS of the constraint in equation(\ref{cons}) to be multiplied by N. We then
use a $3 \times 3$ matrix valued Lagrange multiplier field, $\mu^{ij}(x)$, to
impose the constraint as is usual in this method. The $\phi$ fields can then be
integrated out and the partition function is expressed as,
\begin{equation}
Z~=~\int_{\mu,\hat m}e^{-NS_{eff}[\mu,\hat m]}
\label{part}
\end{equation}
where, $S_{eff}[\mu, \hat m]$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
S_{eff}[\mu,\hat m]={1 \over 2}lndet(-\partial_\mu^2-i\mu)
                              +\int_x~{1 \over g_1}(1+f(m^z))tr\mu
                              +{1 \over g_2}(\partial_\mu \hat m)^2
                              +V(m^z)
\label{seff}
\end{equation}
It is now clear that using the saddle point method, a systematic expansion
in 1/N can be developed for $Z$. The same procedure can easily be generalised
for correlation functions as well.

The saddle point equations are obtained by setting the variation of the effective
action in equation(\ref{seff}) with respect to $\mu^{ij}(x)$ and $\hat m(x)$ equal
to zero. We look for translationally invariant ($x$ independent) solutions. Putting
$m^z = cos(\theta)$ and $-i\mu^{ij} = M_a^2 \delta^{ij}$, the saddle point
equations can be written as,
\beqar
\frac{\delta S}{\delta \mu ^{ij}}~~&=& 0 \label{stcond1} \\
\frac{\delta S }{\delta (m^z)^2}~~&=& 0 \label{stcond2}
\eeqar
Applying these conditions and
putting in for $\mu _{ij}$ the ansatz,
$i\mu _{ij} = M_a ^2 \delta _{ij}$ we get the following solutions
for $m^z$,
\beq
\frac{1}{g_1} - \alpha (m^z)^2 = \frac{1}{2}\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3}
\frac{1}{K^2 + M_a ^2}
\label{gapeqn0}\eeq
From the second condition (\ref{stcond2}),
we get the two possible solutions for
$m^z$  of which the first one is,
\beq
m^z = \eta _0 - \frac{2 \alpha M_a ^2}{\lambda _0} = \cos \bar \theta
\label{theta}
\eeq
The other possible condition solution is  $m^z = 1$.

If we define $g_{crit}$ by the equation,

\beq
\frac{1}{g _{crit}} = \int \frac{d^3K}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{k^2}
= \frac{\Lambda}{2\pi^2}
\eeq
Then when
\beq
\frac{1}{g_1} - \alpha \geq \frac{1}{g_{crit}}
\label{cond1}\eeq
Then, $M_a^2 =0 $ and from equation (\ref{theta}) ,
if $\eta_0 >1$, the solution for $m^z$
in this case is $ m^z =1$.
Since in this phase $\frac{1}{M_a}$, which is the
correlation length for the $\Phi $ fields, diverges,
this describes
an $SO(3)_R$ broken phase. In addition, in this phase
 the $SO(2)_L$ symmetry is unbroken because
 $m^z =1 $.
The
low lying excitations in this phase are the three
Goldstone bosons coming from this symmetry breaking.
They are the three spinwave modes with spin = 1.

When
\beq
\frac{1}{g_1} - \alpha < \frac{1}{g_{crit}}
\label{cond2a}\eeq
Then
$ M_a \not = 0 $ ( which follows from (\ref{gapeqn0})
)
  and this is a phase in which
the  $SO(3)_R$ symmetry is unbroken.
In this disordered regime, the fields $\Phi $  have a finite
correlation length which can be calculated
by solving equation (\ref{gapeqn0}) to get $M_a$.

Now there are two possible solutions for $m^z$.
If
\beq
\eta_0 - \frac{\alpha M_a^2}{\lambda _0} > 1
\label{cond2b}\eeq
Then this offers no solution to equation
(\ref {theta})for $m^z = \cos \bar \theta$ which
is always less
that or equal to 1. Hence the other solution, $m^z =1$ is picked out
 . This implies that this is also a  phase
in which the  $SO(2)_L$
symmetry is unbroken. The groundstate , in this phase
shows no long range order and all low lying excitations about
this state are gapped.

The third possibility is when
\beq
\eta_0 - \frac{\alpha M_a^2}{\lambda _0} < 1
\label{cond3}\eeq
In this case there is a  consistent alternate
solution to equation (\ref {theta}) for
$m^z = \eta _0 -\frac{\alpha M_a^2}{\lambda _0} =
\cos \bar \theta$. Since $\hat m$ no longer points
in the $\hat z $ direction, this spoils the axial
symmetry that existed earlier. In this phase, the $SO(3)_R$ symmetry is, as
earlier, unbroken but the $SO(2)_L$ symmetry is broken and there
is one massless particle which is the angular variable
$\phi _m$. Since $\hat m$ is a spin singlet under $SO(3)_R$
rotations this is a spinless excitation. The other field $\theta _m$ acquires
a gap,which can be calculated.

In this $SO(2)_L$ broken phase the fluctuations in $\theta _m$  are  gapped and
those of $\phi _m $ are gapless. We obtain the mass gap for the $\theta _m$
fluctuations and
rewrite the part of the action S$_m$, which involves just the
fields $\hat m$, in terms of the variables $\theta
_m $ and $\phi _m$ we get, up to quadratic order in the fields,
\beq
S_m = \int d^3 x \sin^2(\bar \theta _m)
\partial _\mu \phi _m \partial _\mu \phi _m
 + \partial _\mu \theta _m\partial _\mu \theta _m +
\frac{{M_\theta} ^2}{2} (\theta _m)^2
 \label {Sm-theta-phi}\eeq
Where $M_{\theta} $ is got by
expanding $S_m$ about the average value of
$m_3 = \cos \bar{\theta}$
given in equation (\ref{theta}).
This is given by the expression,
\beq
M_\theta ^2 = \frac{\lambda _0}{g_2}[ (2 \eta _{0}  - 3) \cos (2 \bar \theta)
- \cos (4  \bar \theta )]
\eeq

So far the discussion  has been restricted to a
regime where the $\hat m$ fields are approximated
by their classical values.
We still need to ascertain
that including fluctuations in $\hat m$ does not
destroy the ordered state.
This has been  established in \cite{first} within
a one loop R.G calculation.
This calculation showed that while the fluctuations
of $\hat m $  tend to destroy the order, there
exists a region of parameter space where they do
not succeed in doing so. This ensures the stability
of the
$SO(2)_L$ broken phase over the effect of quantum
 fluctuations.
\section{Phases of the Kagom\'e lattice.}
\label{secphases}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\hspace{-2cm}
\epsfxsize = 10cm
\epsffile{phases.eps}
\caption{phase diagram  of the $J_1
- J_2$ model on the \kagome lattice. Here
$\chi = \frac {J_2}{J_1}$ and the point
$\chi =0$ is the NNKLAF. }
\label{phases}
\end {figure}
In the previous section we have analysed the
longwavelength field theory (\ref{action1}) and shown that
the system  undergoes two phase transitions as
the coupling constants are tuned.
To relate these results to the phases of \kagome lattice
model that we are considering, we need to relate the coupling
constant of the lattice model $\chi$ to the coupling constants
of the field theory. It is very difficult to reliably calculate
this relation. However, based on some general features and the
numerical results obtained by Lecheminant et. al. \cite{phil},
it is possible to make some qualitative statements.

Firstly it is possible to estimate the potential, $V(m_z)$ and
hence the parameters $\eta_0$ and $\lambda_0$ by substituting
equation (\ref{hsparam}) into the hamiltonian and taking $\hat m_I$
to be independent of $I$. By doing so we get, $\eta_0=1 + 4 \chi $ and
$\lambda_0=\frac{27}{4}J_1 $ \cite{thesis}. While this will be modified by the fluctuations, we
assume that the qualitative fact that $\eta_0$ is an increasing function
of $\chi$ and approaches $\eta_O=1$ as $\chi \rightarrow 0$, remains true.
This amounts to assuming that the gap of the singlet excitations (the H-S
modes) decreases as $\chi$ decreases and approaches 0 as $\chi
\rightarrow 0$. This is consistent with our spinwave spectrum and the
results in reference \cite{phil}

Next, as $\chi$ decreases and the corresponding bonds become weaker, we
can expect large amplitude fluctuations of the spins to cost less energy
and therefore for the spins to disorder. The results of reference \cite{phil}
strongly support this scenario. We therefore assume that $g_1$ increases as
$\chi$ decreases.

Now we look at equation
(\ref{cond2a}) which determines the first phase
boundary for the transition from phase I to phase II (see fig.(\ref{phases})).
The above assumptions imply that for large $\chi$ the system is in phase I
and as $\chi$ is decreased and we move from phase I
to phase II the correlations of the $\Phi$ fields
become short ranged and the corresponding mass gap
$M_a$ increases from the value zero (at $\chi _1$).
$\eta _0$ takes the value one for the NNKLAF and
increases as $\chi$ is increased.
As $\chi$ is
further decreased, $M_a$ increases and
 from equation (\ref{cond3}), for the second phase
boundary, we see that
at some point the inequality is
saturated. This is the second critical point $\chi_2$.

This forms the argument for the scenario depicted in figure (\ref{phases}).
For $\chi >\chi _1$,
the system is in the N\'eel ordered spiral phase.In this
phase, marked I in the diagram,
the $SO(3)_R$ symmetry is broken down to nothing
and the $SO(2)_L$ symmetry is unbroken. The value
of $\chi _1$ is determined by the saturation of the
inequality  (\ref{cond1}).
As $\chi $ is reduced below $\chi _1$ the system
undergoes a transition into the phase marked II.
This is a phase with all symmetries intact .
Further down, there is a second phase transition at
$\chi = \chi _2$, which is determined by the condition (\ref{cond3}).
The phase III is one in which the $SO(3) _R $ symmetry
continues to be unbroken and the $SO(2)_L$ symmetry
is broken.

It has been seen in reference \cite {phil}
that for  $J_2 =0$ the system is disordered and a large number
of low lying singlet
excitations that are observed.  In our analysis of the
continuum model, the breaking of the $SO(2)_L$ symmetry
would result in the collapse of such states
onto the ground state as the system size is increased to infinity.
Our analysis predicts an intermediate phase
II, where both the symmetries are intact. But since it seems
that the ordering of the $\phi _ m$ field is driven by the
disordering of the $U$ field and vice-versa,
it is possible that in the real system, fluctuations
could cause $\chi_1$ and $\chi _2$ to coincide,
thereby causing a direct jump from phase I to phase III.

This is our picture of the phases of the
Kagom\'e lattice as a function of $\chi$. In the next
section we describe the behaviour of the correlation
functions in the phase III and give an
expression for the relevant order parameter.

\section{Correlation functions and order parameter.}
\label{seccorr}

We will now construct a suitable local order parameter, in terms of the
spins, to describe the phase III discussed in the previous section.
This is the phase in which the $SO(3)_R$ spin symmetry is unbroken and the
$SO(2)_L$ symmetry is broken. The order parameter should therefore be a
spin singlet and transform non-trivially under the $SO(2)_L$ symmetry. In
terms of the field theory variables, the transverse components of the
$\hat m$ field, i.e $(m_x, m_y)$, is such an order parameter. It will
have a non-zero value in phase III and its correlation functions will be
long ranged.

Since the $SO(2)_L$ symmetry is not present in the lattice
spin model, the identification of such an order parameter in terms of the
spins is not straightforward. As discussed in section(\ref{secparam}), the
$\hat m$ fields represent spin configurations where the elementary
triangles are left intact but neighbouring triangles are not coplanar.
Now consider the scalar triple product of three spins lying on the same line
in a unit cell. e.g. labelled by (11), (02) and (00)
(see figure (\ref{corr}) ).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\hspace{-2cm}
\epsffile{corr.eps}
\caption{The crosses refer to various sites on the unit cell and the dashed lines connect sites forming
the order parameters C(X,11,02,00), C(X,12,00,01) and C(X,10,01,02) .}
\label{corr}
\end {figure}
\begin{equation}
C(X,11,02,00) = \vec{S}_{11}. \vec{S}_{02}\times \vec{S}_{00}
\label{stp}
\end{equation}
This operator is a spin singlet. When the two neighbouring triangles that
they belong to are coplanar, then so are these three spins and consequently
the their scalar triple product is zero. When the triangles are not coplanar,
then neither are the three spins. Since $\vec{S}_{02}\times \vec{S}_{00}$ is
the vector normal to the plane of the central triangle
and $\vec {S} _{11}$ is a vector lying in the plane of the neighbouring
triangle, therefore the scalar triple product defined in equation (\ref {stp})
is a measure of the angle between the planes of the two adjoining triangles.
We can therefore expect it to reflect the behaviour of the $\hat m$ field.

To confirm this we express the right hand side of equation(\ref{stp}) in terms
of the $U$ and $\hat m$ fields using the parameterisation of the spins given in
equations (\ref{hsparam0}) and (\ref{hsparam}). Since it is a spin singlet, it
is independent of $\Phi _r ^a$ and it turns out to be,
\beqar
C(X,11,02,00))&=&\frac{3}{4} Cos \phi _m (X) Sin \theta _m(X) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{3}{4} \hat m(X) . \hat E _1
\label {cval}
\eeqar
where $\hat E_1 =(1,0,0)$, a vector in the body fixed frame.
Thus C(X,11,02,00) is  proportional to $m_x$.
Similiarly we can define the operators
\beqar
C(X,12,00,01) &=& \frac{3}{4} Cos(\phi _m(X) +\frac{2
\pi}{3} ) Sin \theta _m (X) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{3}{4} \hat m(X) . \hat E _3
\label{stp2}\eeqar
and
\beqar
C(X,10,01,02) &=& \frac{3}{4} Cos(\phi _m(X) -\frac{2
\pi}{3} ) Sin \theta _m (X) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{3}{4} \hat m(X) . \hat E _2
\label{stp3}\eeqar
where $\hat E_2 = (\frac{-1}{2}, \frac{\sqrt 3 }{2},
0)$ and $\hat E_3 = (\frac{-1}{2}, \frac{-\sqrt 3}{2},
0)$. By taking other
appropriate linear combinations of these,
we can construct an operator
which is proportional to $m_y$ and we see that operators of the type written down in equations (\ref{cval}, \ref{stp2} and  \ref{stp3})
are good order parameters to characterise the $SO(2)_L$ broken phase.

\section{Conclusions and discussion}
\label{secconclu}

In this paper, we have described the
$J_1 -J_2$ model on the Kagom\'e lattice
by a field theory of the low energy long wavelength
excitations. Analysis of this theory shows that there
are three phases in this model. Based on a comparison
with earlier , exact diagonalization studies, we
relate the coupling constants of the field theory
to the parameter $\chi$ of the hamiltonian. Thereby,
we depict our results as a phase diagram on the
$\chi$ axis as shown in figure (\ref{phases}).
Accordingly, the NNKLAF lies in the phase III which
has been described earlier. In this phase, the ground
state is disordered and there are massless singlet
excitations over the ground state. At large and
small $\chi$ our description of the $J_1 - J_2$
model matches with the numerical studies. In addition, at intermediate $\chi$, we see a completely
disordered phase (II). We have described the transition from phase II to phase III by a suitable singlet
operator constructed out of the spins.

Further, the field theoretic approach explains the
origin of the gapless excitation in the disordered
phase III, by giving a new mechanism.
This mechanism of obtaining a Goldstone mode
is likely to be operative in the model for the group 2
compounds and provides  a means of getting a gapless
bosonic excitation which
lead to a $T^2$ behaviour of the specific heat. This
 is interesting because all symmetries of the
microscopic model are apparently intact and hence there
seems to be no reason for the existence of such a
gapless mode.

In their exact spectra analysis of the $J_1 - J_2$
model on the Kagom\'e lattice, Lecheminant et al \cite {phil}, see
a trend that is supportive of the above picture as far as the NNKLAF
is concerned. Namely they see that while there is no long range
spin order at the $J_2 =0$ end, there is a proliferation
of spin singlet excited states with a small gap which could collapse to the
ground state in the limit of an infinite lattice.
Comparing our results to this, it seems likely that
this collapse is a signal of the breaking
of the $SO(2)_L$ symmetry in the limit of infinite
lattice size.
\\[1cm]


\section{Introduction}

 Ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions create a
highly excited complex system, whose dynamics are governed by
excitation of nucleonic, mesonic, resonance \cite{RQMDf} and, to some
unknown extent, quark and gluon degrees of freedom.  It has been
predicted that the extreme conditions of temperature and density in
such collisions may suffice to create a state, known as quark-gluon
plasma (QGP), where the quarks are no longer confined in hadrons
\cite{QGP}.  This has stimulated experimental searches for evidence of
the deconfinement phase transition.  Interactions between liberated
gluons in the deconfined phase are predicted \cite{RafHag} to enhance
the rate of strangeness production compared to the non-QGP scenarios.

Being the lightest strange hadrons, kaons are expected to dominate
the strange sector by virtue of canonical
thermodynamics \cite{bel}.
The observed kaon multiplicity yields information about the mechanism
of strangeness production, hadronization and
subsequent evolution in the hadron gas, before
the gas becomes sufficiently dilute that the interactions cease.
Inelastic hadronic rescattering can enrich the strangeness content
of the system \cite{koch}.
We report the yields and distributions of charged  kaons  and pions
measured in ultrarelativistic PbPb collisions by the NA44 Experiment,
and discuss implications of these data on the physics of the
above-mentioned hadronic processes.

\section{Experiment and data analysis}

The NA44 Collaboration has measured PbPb collisions at
158 A GeV/c using a focusing spectrometer at the CERN SPS.
A magnet system of two dipoles and three focusing
quadrupoles, together with a tracking complex (a pad chamber,
three highly segmented scintillation hodoscopes H2, H3, H4 and two
strip chambers) provides momentum resolution of 0.2\%.
The spectrometer accepts charged particles of a single charge at a
time,
has two angular positions (44 and 131 mrad) and is
operated at two different field strengths.
In the weak field mode, it accepts charged tracks in the
momentum range of $3.3<p<5.1$ GeV$/c$,
and of $6.3<p<9.7$ GeV$/c$ in the strong field mode.
These two field modes are often called ``the 4 GeV/c'' and
``the 8 GeV/c'' settings, respectively.
More details about the spectrometer are given in \cite{NA44ex}.

Low (predominantly single track) multiplicity in the spectrometer
acceptance allows use of two Cherenkov counters (C1, C2) for threshold
discrimination of particles of different mass.
Collection of $K/p$  and $\pi$ samples uses
different trigger requirements: in the $K/p$ mode, the absence of
pions and electrons
in the acceptance is enforced by a Cherenkov veto (on C1, or both C1
and C2, depending on the momentum setting), whilst for pions,
no special trigger enrichment is needed.

Separation of kaons from protons in all settings is performed off-line
using the time-of-flight difference between $K$ and $p$.
The time-of-flight is measured using the beam counter
\cite{bc} (with 35 ps resolution) as start and H3
(with 100 ps resolution) as stop.
In the weak magnetic field mode,
the pions used in this analysis are identified by time-of-flight,
while
events with electrons in  the acceptance are rejected off-line using
C2.
High ($\ge 98 \%$) purity of the $K$ and $\pi$ samples is achieved.
In the strong field mode, pions are obtained by subtracting identified
kaons and protons from all charged tracks.

Inefficiencies due to the Cherenkov vetoes are evaluated
by measuring the rejection by the Cherenkovs in untriggered runs.
Such unwanted vetoes occur when a kaon or proton is accompanied by
a pion, electron or muon in the Cherenkov counters.
To evaluate the inefficiency in the weak magnetic field runs,
the vetoed kaons are identified by time-of-flight
and the Uranium calorimeter \cite{UCAL} data is used for $\pi/e$
separation.
In the strong magnetic field runs,
the momentum of the particles is too high for reliable separation
by time-of-flight, and
subtraction of pions, utilizing knowledge of
the pion line shape in $m^2$, is used to count vetoed kaons.

NA44 has two detectors to characterize event
multiplicity: $T_0$ (a scintillator trigger counter
 covering $ 1.4 \le \eta \le 3.7 $  for an $\eta$-dependent
fraction of azimuthal angle,
$0.22 \le \Delta \phi / 2\pi \le 0.84 $
respectively), and a Si pad array measuring $\,dE/\,dx$ in
512 pads covering  $1.5\le \eta \le 3.3 $ and $2\pi$ azimuthally.
The multiplicity of a given particle, measured in the spectrometer,
is an average over many events of a certain centrality class,
set by the trigger.
Accurate determination of the trigger centrality is performed
by varying the centrality used in normalizing
the yield of charged tracks in the spectrometer
until this yield agrees with the multiplicity in the Si array.
Correction for the acceptance difference between the spectrometer
 and the
Si array is performed using the RQMD model \cite{RQMD}, which is
consistent with measured \cite{NA49h-} charged hadron distributions.
Kaon and pion samples of identical Si multiplicity
are selected via the $T_0$ signal amplitude.

Differential distributions of particles in rapidity, $y$, and
transverse
kinetic energy, $m_T-m$, carry information about the dynamics of the
collision.
In determining $dN/dy$ for kaons and pions we use spectrometer
settings, or portions thereof, with
$\Delta y = 0.2-0.6$.
Any dependence of the slope parameter(s) upon $y$ is therefore
negligible. Then
\begin{equation}
{\Big\langle E\frac{\,d^3N}{\,dp^3}\Big\rangle}_{\Delta y, 2\pi} =
\frac{1}{2\pi}{\Big\langle\frac{\,dN}{m_T\,dm_{T}}
\Big\rangle}_{\Delta y} =
\frac{\frac{\,dn}{m_T\,dm_{T}}\int\limits_{\Delta y}^{}
\frac{\,d\widetilde{N}}{\,dy} \,dy}
     {2\pi\Delta y \int\limits_{\Delta y}^{}A
     \frac{\,d\widetilde{N}}{\,dy} \,dy}
\end{equation}
where $A=A(y,m_{T})$ is the acceptance function
from Monte Carlo simulation of the spectrometer, including effects
of magnetic
optics, detector response, momentum resolution, tracking efficiency
and decays.
$\,dn/\,dm_T$ is the number density of reconstructed tracks in  $m_T$.
$d\widetilde{N}/dy$ is the shape of the rapidity distribution,
 taken to be Gaussian around midrapidity.
  Integration of the $m_T$ distribution with extrapolation
  to $m<m_{T}<\infty$, using the fitted slopes,  results  in
  $\,dN/\,dy$.

Table \ref{sigma_rep} shows the sources of
uncertainty on $dN/dy$.
The error in the extrapolation due to uncertainty in the slope
parameter(s)
is small because over 95\% of particles around mid-rapidity have $p_T$
 in
the range covered by one of the two angle settings.
Consequently, the systematic error in $dN/dy$ is dominated not by the
extrapolation, but by uncertainties in determination of centrality
and particle ID efficiency.
\begin{table}
\caption{Summary of fractional
systematic errors to the normalized yields.
As the ``representative'' case, the case of positive kaons in weak
field
high angle spectrometer setting is chosen.
The data in the lines marked ``worst'' and ``best'' are not linked
by the choice of a specific setting, but list the maximum and minimum
uncertainty
(among all settings)  due to a particular source.
\label{sigma_rep}}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
 case      & centrality & PID     & $p_T$ extrapolation & total \\
\hline

representative & 0.081  &  0.042  &          0.0067     & 0.098  \\
worst       &  0.081    &  0.25   &          0.063      & 0.26  \\
best        &  0.058    &  0.014  &          0.0042     & 0.058 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Results and discussion}
Tables \ref{sigma_T} and \ref{sigma_dndy} give the
$m_T$ slope parameters
and values of $dN/dy$ for kaons and pions, along with the statistical
and systematic uncertainties.
The measured distributions for charged kaons
of both signs in transverse kinetic energy and
rapidity, are shown on Fig. \ref{kt} and Fig. \ref{dndy_04},
respectively.
\begin{table}
\caption{Inverse slope parameters T.
\label{sigma_T}}
\begin{tabular}{cccl}
\hline
 PID & $y$ interval &   $T$ (MeV) & $ \sigma(T)$ stat., syst. (MeV)\\
\hline
 $K^+$          & 2.3-2.6 & 230         & $\pm$ 8 $\pm$ 14 \\
  $K^+$         & 2.4-2.9 & 254        &  $\pm$ 4 $\pm$ 7 \\
  $K^-$         & 2.3-2.6 & 259        & $\pm$ 8 $\pm$ 12 \\
  $K^-$         & 2.4-2.9 & 245         &  $\pm$ 7 $\pm$ 6 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\caption{Particle distributions in rapidity. Every spectrometer
 setting
 provides an independent measurement. Settings overlapping in $y$
 are listed  separately.
\label{sigma_dndy}}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
 PID & $y$ interval &    $dN/dy$  &   $\sigma(dN/dy)$ \\
\hline
4\% centr. $K^+$  & 2.7-2.9   &  37.1      & $\pm$  5.4  \\
                  & 2.3-2.6   &  27.2      &  $\pm$  2.5     \\
                  & 3.1-3.4   &  29.7     &   $\pm$  5.6    \\
                  & 2.6-2.8   &  33.6      &  $\pm$   3.1    \\
4\% centr. $K^-$  & 2.7-2.9   &  21.5      &   $\pm$  7.5    \\
                  & 2.3-2.5   &  18.7      &   $\pm$  1.9    \\
                  & 3.1-3.4   &  15.4      &   $\pm$  4.1    \\
                  & 2.6-2.8   &  14.8      &   $\pm$  1.4    \\

4\% centr. $\pi^+$  & 3.3-3.7  &  160      & $\pm$   15   \\
                    & 2.6-2.9  &  153      & $\pm$   10   \\
                    & 3.5-4.0  &  145      & $\pm$   10  \\
                    & 2.6-2.9  &  164      & $\pm$   13   \\
4\% centr. $\pi^-$ & 3.3-3.7  &   176      & $\pm$   14  \\
                   & 2.6-2.9  &   193	   & $\pm$   12  \\
                   & 3.5-4.0  &   173      & $\pm$   12  \\
                   & 2.6-2.9  &   173      & $\pm$   15  \\

\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.5cm
\epsfbox{figure1.eps}
\caption{Measured transverse kinetic energy distributions of
positive and negative kaons
for the  4\% and  10\% most central of Pb+Pb collisions.
RQMD predictions for $|y-y_{CM}|<0.6$ (i.e., within NA44 acceptance)
are shown as  histograms. The fits follow the form
$1/m_{T}\,dN/\,dm_{T} \propto exp(-m_{T}/T)$,
where $m_{T} = (m^{2}+p_{T}^{2})^{1/2}$.
$y$ ranges of the fits are given in Table 2 and are indicated by
the horizontal
errorbars in the inserts.}
\label{kt}
\end{figure}
The $1/m_T$  scaled spectra
look approximately exponential in accordance with the
behaviour typical for thermalized ensembles of interacting particles,
or for particles in whose production the phase-space constraints
played the dominant role \cite{mil-roz}.
The spectra were fit with an exponential in $(m_T - m)$, and the
 resulting
slopes are shown in the inserts in Fig. 1.
The inverse slopes of the $K^+$ and $K^-$ spectra are the same,
within errors.
Our event selection is sufficiently central that the slopes
show no dependence on multiplicity.

In Fig. 2, it is clear that many fewer kaons are produced than pions,
as was observed in $p+p$ collisions. There are approximately twice
as many positive as negative kaons produced. This is typical for
baryon rich systems, and was also observed in $p+p$ collisions.
Preliminary NA49 measurements of $K^+$ and $K^-$ $\,dN/\,dy$
\cite{NA49s} are consistent with those reported here.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.5cm
\epsfbox{figure2.eps}
\caption{
Comparison of measured charged kaon and pion yields with RQMD
 predictions.
The vertical error bars indicate statistical and systematic errors,
added in
quadrature; the horizontal ones -- $y$ boundaries of the
acceptance used for $p_T$ integration in each spectrometer setting.
Open symbols
 represent spectrometer settings whose $y$ position is
shown mirror-reflected around midrapidity (2.92);
their solid analogs -- the actual settings.
RQMD: solid line -- standard mode, dashed line -- no rescattering.
}
\label{dndy_04}
\end{figure}

Both Fig. 1 and 2 compare the data with predictions of the
transport theoretical approach RQMD \cite{RQMD}.
While RQMD tends to overpredict
both the $K^+$ and $K^-$ yields,
for $K^-$ the discrepancy appears to be larger.
Running RQMD in the mode which does not allow the hadrons to rescatter
(shown by the dashed line on the figure) decreases
the number of kaons produced. This result illustrates the importance
of the secondary scattering to the total kaon yields.
 Measurements of proton production at midrapidity\cite{NA44p}
and of the $p-\bar{p}$ rapidity distribution\cite{NA49p}
 indicate that RQMD somewhat overpredicts the degree of baryon
 stopping.
Because $\pi N$ inelastic collisions can produce kaons,
an increase in stopping translates naturally into kaon enhancement
 at midrapidity.
The data show that the hadron chemistry via secondary scattering, as
implemented in RQMD, successfully reproduces the general trends in the
hadron distribution. However, the hadron chemistry in the model
is not quantitatively correct.

Exothermic strangeness exchange reactions of the kind
$K+N \rightarrow Y + \pi$ and
$\overline{K}+\overline{N} \rightarrow \overline{Y} + \pi$
are favoured by the cooling of the system, and
redistribute strangeness from the mesonic to the  baryonic sector.
If larger systems reach lower temperature before freezing out
\cite{Shuryak},
such reactions may be important in Pb+Pb collisions.
These strangeness processes are in RQMD.
The model seems to underpredict (preliminary)
$\Lambda$ yields \cite{NA49s} and overpredict $K^-$.
This may indicate that the details of the description should be
 reexamined.

The $K/\pi$ abundance ratio allows estimation of  the degree of
 strangeness
enhancement and comparison of various colliding systems.
Fig. \ref{kpi_s} summarizes the existing midrapidity data in
 symmetric systems: ISR p+p \cite{Alper};
AGS AuAu \cite{E802}; SPS SS \cite{NA35SS}; and SPS PbPb.
\footnote{In this figure, as well as in Fig. \ref{p_pi}, the
hadron abundances we present are integrals over a fixed fraction
 of rapidity around
midrapidity $y_{CM}$: $|y-y_{CM}|\le |y_{proj}-y_{targ}|/8$.
This enables the comparison between various energies and experiments,
but involves an interpolation in $y$ for
experiments with larger coverage.}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.5cm
\epsfbox{figure3.eps}
\caption{
$K/\pi$ ratios in symmetric systems at midrapidity
 $|y-y_{CM}|\le |y_{proj}-y_{targ}|/8$.
The solid line shows full solid angle $K/\pi$ in $p+p$ collisions
from the interpolation \protect{\cite{Rossi}}.
The data points from other experiments result from an interpolation
in $y$ to the midrapidity interval.
The E866 data points \protect{\cite{E802}} are also interpolated
in the number of participants, for comparison with the SPS data.
}
\label{kpi_s}
\end{figure}
Strangeness enhancement compared to the interpolated
\cite{Rossi} $pp$ collision data, shown as the line, is seen.
The solid point, corresponding to ISR data at midrapidity, indicates
the extent of the enhancement due to the midrapidity cut on the
particles.
The figure shows that $K^+/\pi^+$ is enhanced in high multiplicity
heavy ion collisions, but $K^-/\pi^-$ is consistent with  $p+p$
values. Higher multiplicity, or more central collisions, yields larger
enhancement, independent of $\sqrt{s}$.

Secondary hadronic interactions
of the type  $\pi + N \rightarrow Y + \overline{K}$
are important for
the strangeness production \cite{RQMDf,Sorge},
and their rate is proportional
to the product of the participant's effective concentrations.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.5cm
\epsfbox{figure4.eps}
\caption{Comparison of measurements with RQMD predictions:
 $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio in the specified rapidity
interval around mid-rapidity, as a function of the product
of pion and proton $dN/dy$,
obtained in the same rapidity interval,  in symmetric
collisions.
\large $\diamond$ \normalsize -- E866 AuAu,
\large $\bullet$ \normalsize -- NA44 SS,
\large $\circ$  \normalsize -- NA44 PbPb.
RQMD: solid line -- standard mode, dashed line -- no rescattering.
}
\label{p_pi}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{p_pi} shows
the dependence of the $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio on the product of rapidity
densities of the two ingredients of the associated strangeness
production, $N$ (represented by $p$)
and $\pi^+$ in the AGS \cite{E866} and SPS \cite{NA44SS} data,
and RQMD calculations.
This ``$p\times\pi$'' product serves as an
observable measure of the strangeness-enhancing rescattering.
The rate of change in the  $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio
with this rescattering observable
is initially very high. However, $K^+/\pi^+$ nearly saturates after
this initial rise. The figure shows why the enhancement is large as
soon as the multiplicity becomes appreciable. The values of
``$p\times\pi$'' reached at the SPS and AGS are comparable, explaining
the similarity of the kaon enhancement despite the different energies.
RQMD reproduces the trend of the data very well, and the dotted
lines (illustrating no rescattering) along with the shape of the rise
with ``$p\times\pi$'' underscore
the role of hadronic rescattering in kaon yields. The quantitative
agreement of RQMD with the data is not as good, but the final results
are undoubtedly quite sensitive to the magnitude of the cross sections
used in the model.

\section{Conclusions}
Production of charged $K$ and $\pi$ mesons in central Pb+Pb collisions
at 158 GeV/nucleon has been measured. Within the centrality range
studied,
no strong multiplicity dependence of the kaon $m_T$ slopes or
$K/\pi$ ratios has been observed. We see no significant slope
 difference
between $K^+$ and $K^-$. $K^+/\pi^+$ is enhanced by a factor of about
two over $p+p$ collisions, whereas $K^-/\pi^-$ is little enhanced. Our
measurement of $K^+/K^-$ in this saturated region may be used for
chemical calculations of the hadron gas.

Comparison with the RQMD model shows that the model qualitatively
reproduces the hadron chemistry, through the rescattering of the
produced particles.
Quantitative comparisons, however, show that the model
overpredicts the $K^-$, while the magnitude of $K^+$ enhancement
is within the range explainable by the RQMD mechanisms.
Deconfinement scenarios of the $K^+/\pi^+$ enhancement can not,
however, be ruled out or proven by these data alone.

\section{Acknowledgements}
We are grateful to Heinz Sorge for many helpful and illuminating
conversations.
The NA44 Collaboration wishes to thank the staff of the CERN PS-SPS
accelerator complex for their excellent work, and the technical
staff in
the collaborating institutes for their valuable contributions.
This work was supported by the Science Research Council of Denmark;
the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science; the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture, Japan;  the Science Research Council
of Sweden; the US Department of Energy
and the National Science Foundation.