format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

As an excellent candidate to embed the standard model(SM) in a more fundamental theory, the minimal supersymmetric standard model(MSSM) has many good features. It ingeniously tackles the abominable gauge hierarchy problem from which ordinary unification theories suffer , provides a mechanism that supergravity models all share which breaks the electroweak(EW) symmetry dynamically via radiative corrections, naturally provides the lightest supersymmetric particle(LSP) as a candidate of the dark matter in astrophysics and cosmology, etc. In spite of these theoretical virtues, however, the MSSM suffers from great uncertainty which arises from the large number of free parameters describing the soft supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking. One may greatly reduce the parameter space and make the theory much more predictive via adopting the universality conditions at high energy scale, e.g., one may choose the minimal supergravity model(MSUGRA). Furthermore, with the aid of the concept of infrared quasi fixed point(IRQFP), further reduction of parameter space has been observed in many works. It reveals the screening effect for soft breaking parameters implied entirely by the renormalization group equations(RGEs) and the large top Yukawa coupling, and with this one may rely on two or even one free soft SUSY breaking terms, i.e., $`M_0`$ and $`M_{1/2}`$ or only $`M_{1/2}`$. In these cases one can work in models of highly predictive power leaving some of the universality boundary assumptions. This IRQFP analysis was extended to the large tan$`\beta `$ scenario in which the whole set of Yukawa coupling of the third generation has to be considered. The result shows that the theory also exhibit the IRQFP for large tan$`\beta `$ and allows one to predict SUSY mass spectra as functions only of $`M_{1/2}`$, but the analysis turns out to be much more complicated.

While hindered in this situation, a crucial observation was made in Ref.  which showed the intrinsic connection between the solutions for the RGEs of soft terms and those of the gauge coupling constants and Yukawa couplings. It tells that one can get the solutions of RGEs for the soft SUSY breaking terms via substituting the modified expressions for gauge and Yukawa couplings in the solutions of the RGEs for gauge and Yukawa couplings .

$`\alpha _i`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i=\alpha _i(1+M_i\eta +\overline{M}_i\overline{\eta }+2M_i\overline{M}_i\eta \overline{\eta }),\eta =\theta ^2,\overline{\eta }=\overline{\theta }^2,`$
$`Y_k`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_k=Y_k(1A_k\eta \overline{A}_k\overline{\eta }+A_k\overline{A}_k\eta \overline{\eta }+\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\eta \overline{\eta }),`$
and expanding over the Grassmannian parameters $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$, which is exactly the spurion field description of soft SUSY breaking . The technique was immediately used to probe the implication of RGEs for the soft SUSY breaking terms in large tan$`\beta `$ scenario, but one faced with the problem of finding good analytical forms for Yukawa couplings. This problem was solved in Ref.  in which an integral form for Yukawa coupling evolution was given which was shown to be a convergent scheme for numerical calculations and a convenient and concise form for qualitative analysis. In view of this solution, the general analytical forms for the solutions of the soft SUSY breaking terms were obtained in this complicated case via the spurion field expansion and the IRQFP feature was analyzed for non-universal boundaries of soft terms.

Although the solution for soft SUSY breaking terms look concise and simple, the procedure described above, especially the actual calculation of spurion expansion is still complicated due to the a little bit complicated iterative solutions for Yukawa couplings . So in Ref.  the author restrict their attention to real trilinear couplings and real gaugino masses. However, in a lot of works on superstring theory and M-theory phenomenology non-universal complex soft terms appear naturally , which provide new sources of CP violation. And the SUSY CP violating phases may not be constrained to be small due to the cancellation mechanism of SUSY contributions to electron and neutron electric dipole moments (EDME and EDMN), and one has extensively discussed the phenomenological implications of large phases of $`\mu `$, gaugino masses and trilinear terms while satisfying the EDME and EDMN constraints . Therefore, it is important to extend the study of non-universality of soft terms to the complex parameter case. In this paper we will show that the convenient iterative formsof the solutions of RGEs can be obtained very succinctly in the approach of directly solving RGEs and extend to the complex non-universal soft terms. Our results show that the real and imaginary parts of trilinear couplings have infrared quasi fixed points respectively if the initial values of Yukawa couplings are large enough ( at least $`Y_k^0>\alpha ^0`$).

The paper is organized as follows. In section two we will show briefly how one can directly solve the RGEs and arrive at the forms in Ref. , and extend the analysis to more general case, complex parameter case. In section three we will analyze the IRQFP in the case with SUSY CP violating phases and discuss the phenomenological implications. Finally, conclusions are drawn in section four.

## 2 Solution of the RGEs

The one loop RGEs for gauge and Yukawa coupling and soft breaking terms can be written as

$`\dot{\alpha }_i`$ $`=`$ $`b_i\alpha _i^2,`$ (1)
$`\dot{Y}_k`$ $`=`$ $`Y_k({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}\alpha _i{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}a_{kl}Y_l),`$ (2)
$`\dot{M}_i`$ $`=`$ $`b_i\alpha _iM_i,`$ (3)
$`\dot{A}_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}\alpha _iM_i{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}a_{kl}Y_lA_l,`$ (4)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_k`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}\alpha _i|M_i|^2{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}a_{kl}Y_l(\mathrm{\Sigma }_l+|A_l|^2),`$ (5)
where $`\alpha _i=g_i^2/16\pi ^2`$, i=1,2,3, $`Y_l=y_l^2/16\pi ^2`$, l=t,b,$`\tau ,d/dt,t=\mathrm{log}M_{GUT}^2/Q^2`$ and

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q3}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{U3}^2+m_{H2}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q3}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{D3}^2+m_{H1}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{L3}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{E3}^2+m_{H1}^2,`$
$`b_i`$ $`=`$ $`\{33/5,1,3\},`$
$`c_{ti}`$ $`=`$ $`\{13/15,3,16/3\},c_{bi}=\{7/15,3,16/3\},c_{\tau i}=\{9/5,3,0\},`$
$`a_{tl}`$ $`=`$ $`\{6,1,0\},a_{bl}=\{1,6,1\},a_{\tau l}=\{0,3,4\}.`$
The solutions for $`\alpha _i`$’s and $`M_i`$’s can be easily obtained to be:

$`\alpha _i={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i^0}{1+b_i\alpha _i^0t}},M_i={\displaystyle \frac{M_i^0}{1+b_i\alpha _i^0t}}.`$ (6)
For $`Y_k`$’s, solutions turn out to be

$`Y_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y_k^0u_k}{1+a_{kk}Y_k^0_0^tu_k}}`$ (7)
where $`u_k`$’s are defined iteratively as

$`u_k`$ $`=`$ $`E_k{\displaystyle \underset{lk}{}}(1+a_{ll}Y_l^0{\displaystyle _0^t}u_l)^{a_{kl}/a_{ll}},`$ (8)
with

$`E_k={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(1+b_i\alpha _i^0t)^{c_{ki}/b_i}.`$ (9)
To find the analytic solutions of the renormalization group equations for $`A_k`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$’s, we rewrite them as the form of the Bernoulli equation. Consider the trilinear coupling $`A_k`$ first. We can rewrite Eq. (4) to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA_k}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{de_k}{dt}}a_{kk}Y_kA_k,`$ (10)
with $`e_k`$ defined by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{de_k}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}\alpha _iM_i+{\displaystyle \underset{lk}{}}a_{kl}Y_lA_l,`$
$`e_k^0`$ $`=`$ $`e_k(t)|_{t=0}=0.`$ (11)
Eq. (10) can then be solved in the standard way. The solution is

$`A_k=e_k+{\displaystyle \frac{A_k^0+a_{kk}Y_k^0_0^tu_ke_k}{1+a_{kk}Y_k^0_0^tu_k}}`$ (12)
where $`A_k^0=A_k|_{t=0}`$. In order to solve Eq. (11), we rewrite Eq. (10) as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(A_k+e_k)}{dt}}=a_{kk}Y_kA_k`$ (13)
which means that

$`{\displaystyle _0^t}Y_kA_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{kk}}}(A_k+e_kA_k^0)=Y_k^0{\displaystyle \frac{A_k^0_0^tu_k_0^tu_ke_k}{1+a_{kk}Y_k^0_0^tu_k}}.`$ (14)
Integrating Eq. (11) over t and inserting Eq. (14) in it, we find the iterative integral equations for $`e_k`$’s

$`e_k=t{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}\alpha _iM_i^0+{\displaystyle \underset{lk}{}}a_{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{A_l^0_0^tu_l_0^tu_le_l}{1/Y_l^0+a_{ll}_0^tu_l}}.`$ (15)
For $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$’s, the situation is similar but a little more complicated. From Eq. (13) we can write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d|A_k+e_k|^2}{dt}}=a_{kk}Y_kA_k(A_k+e_k)^{}a_{kk}Y_kA_k^{}(A_k+e_k),`$
or

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(|A_k|^2+A_k^{}e_k+A_ke_k^{})}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{d|e_k|^2}{dt}}a_{kk}Y_k|A_k|^2a_{kk}Y_k(|A_k|^2+A_k^{}e_k+A_ke_k^{}).`$ (16)
Define

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_k=\mathrm{\Sigma }_k|A_k|^2A_k^{}e_kA_ke_k^{},`$ (17)
then we find from Eqs. (5) and (16) that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_k}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _k}{dt}}a_{kk}Y_k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_k`$ (18)
which is the same as Eq. (10) with $`A_k`$ and $`e_k`$ substituted by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_k`$ and $`\xi _k`$ respectively. In Eq. (18) $`\xi _k`$’s are defined by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _k}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}\alpha _i|M_i|^2{\displaystyle \underset{lk}{}}a_{kl}Y_l(\mathrm{\Sigma }_l+|A_l|^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{d|e_k|^2}{dt}},`$
$`\xi _k^0`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _k(t)|_{t=0}=0.`$ (19)
Then from Eqs. (17) and (18) we get

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k=\xi _k+|A_k|^2+A_k^{}e_k+A_ke_k^{}{\displaystyle \frac{|A_k^0|^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^0+a_{kk}Y_k^0_0^tu_k\xi _k}{1+a_{kk}Y_k^0_0^tu_k}}.`$ (20)
The iterative equations for $`\xi _k`$’s are derived in a way similar to that for $`e_k`$ by noting that Eq. (18) can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _k}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{d|e_k|^2}{dt}}a_{kk}Y_k(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k+|A_k|^2),`$
which leads to

$`{\displaystyle _0^t}Y_k(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k+|A_k|^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{kk}}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^0\xi _k+|e_k|^2).`$
From the above equation and Eq. (19), we find

$`\xi _k=t^2|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}\alpha _iM_i^0|^2+2t{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}\alpha _i|M_i^0|^2t^2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}b_i\alpha _i^2|M_i^0|^2`$
$`+t{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}\alpha _iM_i^0{\displaystyle \underset{lk}{}}a_{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{A_l^0_0^tu_l_0^tu_le_l^{}}{1/Y_l^0+a_{ll}_0^tu_l}}+t{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}\alpha _iM_i^0{\displaystyle \underset{lk}{}}a_{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{A_l^0_0^tu_l_0^tu_le_l}{1/Y_l^0+a_{ll}_0^tu_l}}`$
$`+\left|{\displaystyle \underset{lk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_l^0_0^tu_l_0^tu_le_l}{1/Y_l^0+a_{ll}_0^tu_l}}\right|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{lk}{}}a_{kl}a_{ll}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{A_l^0_0^tu_l_0^tu_le_l}{1/Y_l^0+a_{ll}_0^tu_l}}\right|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{lk}{}}a_{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{(|A_l^0|^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_l^0)_0^tu_lA_l^0_0^tu_le_l^{}A_l^0_0^tu_le_l+_0^tu_l\xi _l}{1/Y_l^0+a_{ll}_0^tu_l}}.`$ (21)
The Eqs. (12), (15), (20) and (21) are our main results. When $`M_i`$ and $`A_l`$ are real they reduce to the results given in Ref. , as it should be. The Eqs. (12) and (15) are the same as those in the case of real $`A_l`$’s and $`M_i`$’s so that it follows that $`A_l`$ is independent of its initial value when the initial values of all three Yukawa couplings are large enough ($`Y_l^0`$ larger than $`\alpha ^0`$ ). That is, the real and imagine parts of $`A_l`$ divided by $`M_3`$ have the IFQFPs, respectively. By inspecting Eqs. (20) and (21), one is led to that $`\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{|M_3|^2}`$ possesses an IRQFP if the initial values of all three Yukawa couplings are large enough. In conclusion Yukawa couplings $`Y_l`$ and soft terms $`A_l`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l`$ have IRQFP behaviors in the complex non-universal $`A_l`$ and $`M_i`$ case when the initial values of Yukawa couplings, $`Y_l^0`$’s, are large enough.

It is worth to note that having the analytic solutions of RGEs, it is easy to find the RG invariants. For example, if we define

$`E_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\alpha _i^{c_{ki}/b_i},`$
$`u_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`E_k^0u_k=u_k^0u_k,`$
with $`E_k^0=E_k^{}(t=0)`$ and $`u_k^0=u_k^{}(t=0)`$, then from Eqs. (7), (12) and (20) we obtain the RG invariants

$`F_{1k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_k^{}}{Y_k}}a_{kk}{\displaystyle _0^t}u_k^{},`$
$`F_{2k}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(A_k+e_ka_{kk}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_k}{u_k^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^t}u_k^{}e_k\right)\left(1a_{kk}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_k}{u_k^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^t}u_k^{}\right)^1,`$
$`F_{3k}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\xi _k|A_k|^2A_k^{}e_kA_ke_k^{}+A_{kk}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_k}{u_k^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^t}u_k^{}e_k\right)\left(1a_{kk}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_k}{u_k^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^t}u_k^{}\right)^1,`$
where $`k=t,b,\tau `$, which extend the results in Ref.  to the case with multi Yukawa couplings.

## 3 Numerical Study of Dependences of Soft Terms on Their Initial Values

In order to see the dependences of soft terms on their initial values one can write

$`A_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}c_l^k(t)A_l^0+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d_i^k(t)M_i^0,`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}f_\alpha ^k(t)(m_\alpha ^0)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{ll^{}}{\overset{k}{}}}g_{ll^{}}^k(t)A_l^0A_l^{}^0+{\displaystyle \underset{i,l}{}}h_{il}^k(t)(M_i^0A_l^0+c.c.)+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}I_{ij}^k(t)M_i^0M_j^0,`$ (23)
where the superscript 0 of $`A_l^0`$, $`M_i^0`$ etc. means that they are the initial values, i.e., the values at unification scale, the asterisk, \*, means the complex conjugate, $`g_{ll^{}}^k=g_{l{}_{}{}^{}l}^k`$ and $`I_{ij}^k=I_{ji}^k`$. In Eq. (23) $`\alpha `$ runs over all the third generation scalar quarks and Higgs scalars. The coefficients in the equation depend on the initial values of Yukawa and gauge couplings and , of course, are determined by the solutions of RGEs, (12), (15), (20) and (21).

The IFQFPs exist for any values of tan$`\beta `$ if the initial values of all three Yukawa couplings, $`Y_k^0`$’s, are large enough (say, larger than the gauge coupling at GUT scale), as shown in the last section. However, that whether the condition can be satisfied is in fact dependent of tan$`\beta `$ if we want to make the theory realistic, i.e., to impose the requirement that the third generation quark masses are given by experiments. Therefore, for numerical calculations, we choose the procedures as follows. First, run gauge couplings from $`m_Z`$ scale up to find the scale where gauge couplings unify with the SUSY threshold effects taken at $`M_{SUSY}=400`$ Gev. The values of gauge couplings at $`m_Z`$ are taken directly from Ref. . For three Yukawa couplings, we take corresponding current masses of the third generation quarks from Ref.  and calculate their pole masses, then run them to $`m_Z`$ scale to find the Yukawa couplings at that scale with tan$`\beta `$ fixed (hence the SUSY corrections to the pole mass of top are not included in our calculations). The values of Yukawa couplings at GUT scale, $`Y_k^0`$’s, are found by running their energy scale value up by using Eqs. (7,8,9) and again the SUSY threshold are taken into account at $`M_{SUSY}`$. The second step is to run the gauge couplings, Yukawa couplings, gaugino masses, trilinear soft SUSY breaking terms and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l(l=t,band\tau )`$ down to the low scale (e.g., the $`M_{SUSY}`$ scale ) with the aid of the integral equations (6-9), (12), (15), (20), (21). The masses of the sfermions of the third and the Higgs bosons can be got via $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l(l=t,band\tau )`$ as shown in Ref. . With such a procedure the dependences on Yukawa couplings of the coefficients in Eqs. (22,23) are translated into the dependence on tan$`\beta `$. We show below an example of numerical results at $`t_S=log(M_{GUT}^2/M_{SUSY}^2)=63.28`$ for tan$`\beta =58`$:

$`A_t(t_S)`$ $`=`$ $`0.19118A_t^00.04580A_b^0+0.01059A_\tau ^00.02728M_1^00.20187M_2^01.45580M_3^0,`$
$`A_b(t_S)`$ $`=`$ $`0.04019A_t^0+0.06052A_b^00.03687A_\tau ^00.00168M_1^00.14498M_2^01.32411M_3^0,`$
$`A_\tau (t_S)`$ $`=`$ $`0.03346A_t^00.20839A_b^0+0.28668A_\tau ^00.08353M_1^00.22527M_2^0+0.47013M_3^0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t(t_S)`$ $`=`$ $`0.04580(\stackrel{~}{m}_{D3}^0)^20.03520(m_{H1}^0)^2+0.19118(m_{H2}^0)^2+0.01059(\stackrel{~}{m}_{L3}^0)^2+0.01059(\stackrel{~}{m}_{E3}^0)^2`$
$`+0.14538(\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q3}^0)^2+0.19118(\stackrel{~}{m}_{U3}^0)^20.15170|A_t^0|^2+0.00140|A_b^0|^2+0.00227|A_\tau ^0|^2`$
$`+0.02344(A_t^0A_b^0+A_t^0A_b^0)0.00314(A_t^0A_\tau ^0+A_t^0A_\tau ^0)0.00071(A_b^0A_\tau ^0+A_b^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`+0.00841(M_1^0A_t^0+M_1^0A_t^0)0.00149(M_1^0A_b^0+M_1^0A_b^0)+0.00000(M_1^0A_\tau ^0+M_1^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`+0.04673(M_2^0A_t^0+M_2^0A_t^0)0.00865(M_2^0A_b^0+M_2^0A_b^0)+0.00072(M_2^0A_\tau ^0+M_2^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`+0.18528(M_3^0A_t^0+M_3^0A_t^0)0.03551(M_3^0A_b^0+M_3^0A_b^0)+0.00515(M_3^0A_\tau ^0+M_3^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`0.00418(M_1^0M_2^0+M_1^0M_2^0)0.01949(M_1^0M_3^0+M_1^0M_3^0)0.13369(M_2^0M_3^0+M_2^0M_3^0)`$
$`+0.03411|M_1^0|^2+0.33227|M_2^0|^2+4.96704|M_3^0|^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b(t_S)`$ $`=`$ $`0.06052(\stackrel{~}{m}_{D3}^0)^2+0.02364(m_{H1}^0)^20.04019(m_{H2}^0)^20.03687(\stackrel{~}{m}_{L3}^0)^20.03687(\stackrel{~}{m}_{E3}^0)^2`$
$`+0.02032(\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q3}^0)^20.04019(\stackrel{~}{m}_{U3}^0)^2+0.00420|A_t^0|^20.03908|A_b^0|^20.00028|A_\tau ^0|^2`$
$`+0.00441(A_t^0A_b^0+A_t^0A_b^0)0.00225(A_t^0A_\tau ^0+A_t^0A_\tau ^0)+0.00859(A_b^0A_\tau ^0+A_b^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`+0.00017(M_1^0A_t^0+M_1^0A_t^0)0.00028(M_1^0A_b^0+M_1^0A_b^0)+0.00089(M_1^0A_\tau ^0+M_1^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`0.00243(M_2^0A_t^0+M_2^0A_t^0)+0.00974(M_2^0A_b^0+M_2^0A_b^0)0.00246(M_2^0A_\tau ^0+M_2^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`0.01353(M_3^0A_t^0+M_3^0A_t^0)+0.05688(M_3^0A_b^0+M_3^0A_b^0)0.03167(M_3^0A_\tau ^0+M_3^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`0.00146(M_1^0M_2^0+M_1^0M_2^0)0.00279(M_1^0M_3^0+M_1^0M_3^0)0.09627(M_2^0M_3^0+M_2^0M_3^0)`$
$`0.00098|M_1^0|^2+0.23446|M_2^0|^2+4.64976|M_3^0|^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau (t_S)`$ $`=`$ $`0.20839(\stackrel{~}{m}_{D3}^0)^2+0.07828(m_{H1}^0)^2+0.03346(m_{H2}^0)^2+0.28668(\stackrel{~}{m}_{L3}^0)^2+0.28668(\stackrel{~}{m}_{E3}^0)^2`$ (24)
$`0.17493(\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q3}^0)^2+0.03346(\stackrel{~}{m}_{U3}^0)^2+0.00725|A_t^0|^20.01117|A_b^0|^20.18803|A_\tau ^0|^2`$
$`+0.00192(A_t^0A_b^0+A_t^0A_b^0)0.00469(A_t^0A_\tau ^0+A_t^0A_\tau ^0)+0.07397(A_b^0A_\tau ^0+A_b^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`+0.00035(M_1^0A_t^0+M_1^0A_t^0)0.00932(M_1^0A_b^0+M_1^0A_b^0)+0.01609(M_1^0A_\tau ^0+M_1^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`0.00196(M_2^0A_t^0+M_2^0A_t^0)0.01776(M_2^0A_b^0+M_2^0A_b^0)+0.03236(M_2^0A_\tau ^0+M_2^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`0.02048(M_3^0A_t^0+M_3^0A_t^0)+0.04148(M_3^0A_b^0+M_3^0A_b^0)0.04521(M_3^0A_\tau ^0+M_3^0A_\tau ^0)`$
$`0.00595(M_1^0M_2^0+M_1^0M_2^0)+0.00716(M_1^0M_3^0+M_1^0M_3^0)0.01505(M_2^0M_3^0+M_2^0M_3^0)`$
$`+0.10639|M_1^0|^2+0.38267|M_2^0|^21.72886|M_3^0|^2.`$
One can see from Eq. (24) that for $`A_t`$, $`A_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ there are very large coefficients appearing before $`M_3^0`$ or $`|M_3^0|^2`$ which arise from the large gauge coupling of SU(3) group in the RGEs, Eqs. (4) and (5), and hence make them inevitably greatly depend on the gluino mass. If we consider the scenario with the mass spectrum below 1 TeV, we find that the effects of other high energy boundary values on the low energy spectrum are negligible as illustrated in Eq. (24) and actually it is gluino mass which mainly govern the SUSY mass spectrum (note that $`m_\alpha ^0`$ or less than $`M_i^0`$ is required due to the constraint from cosmology ) so that non-universality has a little influence on low energy mass spectrum. This is the screening effects induced by the large Yukawa couplings of top, bottom and tau for which a detailed discussion in the real parameter case has been given in Ref. . For $`A_\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, the screening effects are weak since here $`M_3^0`$ is not as important as for $`A_t`$, $`A_b`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ and the coefficient of $`M_2^0`$ can compete with that of $`M_3^0`$. In particular, for $`A_\tau `$, the coefficient of $`A_\tau ^0`$ is the same order as that of $`M_3^0`$. That is, we are in the vicinity of the IRQFP in the example. Note that a crucial difference between our discussion and the one in Ref.  is that we use the Yukawa couplings at $`m_Z`$ scale induced from their corresponding current masses of quarks, while in Ref.  Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale much larger than the unified gauge couplings are assumed when the IRQFP behavior is discussed for large tan$`\beta `$. Another difference is that we take the SUSY threshold at $`M_{SUSY}`$ whereas in Ref.  SUSY threshold effects was not considered. As a consequence we find that the value of tan$`\beta `$ for which the IFQFP is reached depend weakly on the choice of $`M_{SUSY}`$. For example the theory exhibits IRQFP behavior at tan$`\beta 59`$ for $`M_{SUSY}=400`$ GeV and at tan$`\beta 60`$ for $`M_{SUSY}=800`$ GeV.

In Fig. 1(a) we illustrate how the dependences of $`A_t`$, $`A_b`$ and $`A_\tau `$ on their initial values, i.e., the coefficient $`c_l^l(t_S)`$ ( l=t,b,$`\tau `$) in Eq. (22), change with tan$`\beta `$. One may find in the figure that the coefficient $`c_t^t(t_S)`$ increases rapidly for tan$`\beta `$ less 5 and decrease slowly afterwards. This is because the top Yukawa coupling, $`y_t`$, behaves as $`\frac{1}{sin\beta }`$ and for somewhat large tan$`\beta `$ it remains almost unchanged. So, according to the procedure described above, when tan$`\beta `$ increases $`Y_t^0`$ can not reach the value large enough to make $`A_t`$ independent of $`A_t^0`$. On the other hand, the coefficients $`c_b^b`$ and $`c_\tau ^\tau `$ decrease considerably as tan$`\beta `$ increases in the whole range and drop sharply to zero when tan$`\beta `$ approaches 59, which is exactly the case as expected since their corresponding Yukawa couplings behave as $`\frac{1}{cos\beta }`$. When tan$`\beta `$ reaches some large value ( $`59`$ ), $`Y_{b,\tau }^0`$ become large enough to make the dependences of $`A_{b,\tau }`$ on their initial values, $`A_{b,\tau }^0`$, almost disappear, i.e., IRQFP is reached. In Fig. 1(b-d) we plot the the dependences of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t(t_S)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b(t_S)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau (t_S)`$ on the initial values of their corresponding three parameters in the definitions of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, i.e., $`f_\alpha ^k(t_S)`$, k=t,b,$`\tau `$ in Eq. (23). One can find the similar behavior of the dependences on initial conditions when changing tan$`\beta `$. It is clear from Fig. 1 that except for $`A_t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, IRQFP behavior becomes more and more evident as tan$`\beta `$ approaches 59, i.e., the point where Landau pole appear as we run bottom and tau Yukawa couplings up.

In Fig. 2 we plot $`\rho _l=A_l/M_3(l=t,band\tau )`$ versus $`\alpha _s`$ for tan$`\beta =58.7`$, running from the GUT scale down to $`M_{SUSY}`$ scale as indicated by the axes of the strong coupling $`\alpha _s`$. One can clearly see the IRQFP behavior of $`\rho _l(l=t,band\tau )`$ from the figure. In summary, the numerical results confirm that despite the CP violating phases introduced, the model still exhibit the IRQFP behavior for soft terms $`A_l`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l`$, as pointed out in section two.

Now we come to a position to address the effects of CP violating phases on sparticle spectrum. For the effects of phases of gaugino masses, $`M_1^0`$ and $`M_2^0`$, on the mass spectrum(because of R-symmetry, we take $`M_3^0`$ real for convenience in the following discussion), one can see from Eq. (24) that the only way for the phases of $`M_1^0`$ and $`M_2^0`$ to be important is that their magnitudes are much larger than $`M_3^0`$(say, at least one order of magnitude), which means a very heavy bino or chargino mass and so is not a preferable scenario. For the phases of trilinear terms $`A_t^0`$, $`A_b^0`$ and $`A_\tau ^0`$, naively one may think that it is possible for them to play important role in the mass spectrum through the interference terms with $`M_3^0`$ as illustrated in Eq. (24). However, notice that because the coefficients of the $`A_l^0M_3^0`$ terms are much smaller than that of $`|M_3|^2`$ term ( e.g., for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, the former are only 1/20 of the latter ) we have to choose $`|A_l^0|(l=t,band\tau )`$ much larger than $`M_3^0`$(say, at least one order of magnitude) in order to make the effects of their phases considerable so that one is led to far from IRQFP. Moreover, since trilinear soft SUSY breaking terms appear in the nondiagonal terms of squark or slepton mass matrices, the large $`A_l`$ induced by very large $`A_l^0`$ , together with terms proportional to $`\mu tan\beta `$, may result in so light stau that stau becomes LSP. Therefore, we can infer from the above discussion that the initial values of trilinear soft SUSY breaking terms cannot be much larger than the magnitudes of $`M_i^0`$. Thus we can conclude that in physically interesting regions of parameter space where the notion of IRQFP can be applied, CP violating phases of gaugino masses and soft trilinear SUSY breaking terms are not important for determining the mass spectrum through their roles played in RGEs.

## 4 Conclusion

In conclusion, we have shown in this paper another way to find the solutions of the RGEs of the soft SUSY breaking terms in the third generation sector of MSSM by directly solving the RGEs themselves. Compared with the method of the spurion expansion, our approach proves to be a simple and convenient way especially for models with complex soft trilinear SUSY breaking terms and gaugino masses. The results in the scenario with complex trilinear terms and gaugino masses turn out to support the notion of IRQFP. It follows that non-universality of trilinear couplings $`A_l`$ and gaugino masses have no influence on sparticle spectrum at the IRQFP. We have studied the effects on mass spectrum of CP violating phases of trilinear terms and the non-universal gaugino masses and find that the effects on the mass spectrum are limited to be small in the physically interesting region of parameter space where the notion of IRQFP can be applied and physical requirements such as LSP being neutral particle are imposed.

## Acknowledgements

The work was partly supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Figure Caption
Fig. 1(a) lines labelled by 1, 2 and 3 correspond respectively to coefficient of $`A_t^0`$ in $`A_t(t_S)`$, i.e., $`c_t^t(t_S)`$ in (22), coefficient of $`A_b^0`$ in $`A_b(t_S)`$, $`c_b^b(t_S)`$, and coefficient of $`A_\tau ^0`$ in $`A_\tau (t_S)`$, $`c_\tau ^\tau (t_S)`$, as functions of tan$`\beta `$. In 1(b) lines 1 and 2 refer respectively to coefficients of $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q3}^0)^2`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_{U3}^0)^2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t(t_S)`$. In 1(c) lines labeled by 1, 2 and 3 are respectively coefficients of $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q3}^0)^2`$, $`(m_{H1}^0)^2`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_{D3}^0)^2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b(t_S)`$. In 1(d) lines 1 and 2 correspond respectively to coefficients of $`(m_{H1}^0)^2`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_{L3}^0)^2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau (t_S)`$.

Fig. 2 Three dimensional plots of $`\rho _l=A_l/M_3(l=t,band\tau )`$ as functions of $`\alpha _s`$ for tan$`\beta =58.7`$. The other parameters are chosen as $`M_1^0=M_2^0=500`$ GeV, $`M_3^0=400`$ GeV and $`M_0=800`$ GeV. Initial values of $`|\rho _l|`$’s are chosen as 1 or 2 and the phases of $`\rho _l^0`$’s are taken as $`i\times \pi /4(i=0,\mathrm{},7)`$.


text: # \fpDefinition 2-1


text:
# A variational study of bound states in the Higgs model

## I Introduction

The possible existence of bound states for the Higgs boson has been studied by several authors  with both perturbative and non-perturbative calculations. At present, there is little agreement between the quantitative predictions of such calculations.

A variational method, within the Hamiltonian formalism, has been used by Di Leo and Darewych (DLD) . However, because of the apparent complexity of the resulting integral equations, they resorted to additional approximations that are unsatisfactory when the coupling is strong. In this paper we show that an exact decoupling of DLD’s integral equations is possible by use of some symmetry properties. This allows a considerable simplification of the problem. For an $`s`$-wave solution we show in detail that the method gives rise to a one-dimensional integral equation that can be tackled numerically.

Mass renormalization (beyond normal ordering) plays a crucial role, although it is finite. (The infinite mass renormalization in DLD turns out to be an artifact of their other approximations). The physical mass is significantly reduced from its classical value in the strong-coupling regime. Because of this mass-reduction effect we find that the occurrence of bound states (i.e., solutions in the 2-particle sector with $`E<2m`$) is shifted towards the very strong coupling regime, well beyond the reach of any perturbative approximation. However a relatively small physical mass ($`m0.10.5`$ TeV) is required as a consequence of the same renormalization effect.

Our paper is organized as follows: the variational method is described in section II. A general prescription for the mass renormalization is then provided and discussed. Section III deals with the delicate aspect of mass renormalization through a variational one-particle trial state calculation analogous to the two-particle trial state used in section II. The existence of Higgs-Higgs bound states is discussed in section IV and the results are compared with those of other authors.

Our discussion here uses the conventional framework that the Higgs theory is an effective theory with a large, but finite cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ .

## II Variational Method

Following DLD, our starting point is the Lagrangian

$$={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu h^\mu h{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0^2h^2\frac{1}{3!}\lambda vh^3\frac{1}{4!}\lambda h^4,$$
(1)
for a neutral, scalar Higgs field $`h`$. For the present we regard $`m_0`$, $`v`$, and $`\lambda `$ as three independent bare parameters; only in section IV shall we need to impose the constraint $`m_0^2=\frac{1}{3}\lambda v^2`$ that arises when this model is obtained from a spontaneously broken $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ theory.

In the Schrödinger representation, at $`t=0`$, the field is quantized in terms of creation and annihilation operators

$$h(𝐱)=\frac{d^3k}{\sqrt{(2\pi )^32\omega _𝐤}}\left[a_𝐤\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐱)+a_𝐤^{}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐱)\right]$$
(2)
satisfying the usual commutation relations

$$[a_𝐤,a_{}^{}{}_{𝐩}{}^{}]=\delta ^3(𝐤𝐩).$$
(3)
The energy of the single particle states is

$$\omega (𝐤)=\omega _k=\sqrt{𝐤^2+m^2}$$
(4)
where $`m`$ is the physical mass which may differ from the classical mass $`m_0`$. The Hamiltonian $`H`$ is obtained from Eq. (1) as

$`H={\displaystyle d^3k\left(\omega _k\frac{\delta m^2}{2\omega _k}\right)a_𝐤^{}a_𝐤}{\displaystyle d^3k\frac{\delta m^2}{4\omega _k}\left(a_𝐤^{}a_𝐤^{}+a_𝐤a_𝐤\right)}+`$ (5)
$`+:[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda v}{3!}}{\displaystyle }d^3xh^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4!}}{\displaystyle }d^3xh^4]:`$ (6)
where $`\delta m^2=m^2m_0^2`$. The Hamiltonian has been normal ordered with respect to the physical mass $`m`$.

The preceding discussion follows the conventions of Ref. , except that our $`\lambda `$ is a factor of 6 larger than theirs, since we use $`\lambda /4!`$ rather than $`\lambda /4`$.

The trial two-boson bound state considered by DLD  is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=d^3pB(𝐩)a_𝐩^{}a_𝐩^{}|0+d^3pd^3qd^3kG(𝐩,𝐪,𝐤)a_𝐩^{}a_𝐪^{}a_𝐤^{}|0\delta ^3(𝐩+𝐪+𝐤),$$
(7)
with $`|0`$ the vacuum annihilated by $`a`$. We observe that the function $`B(𝐩)`$ may be taken to be symmetric without any loss of generality; a general $`B(𝐩)`$ could always be decomposed into an even and an odd part and the odd part would give no contribution to (7). This reflects the fact that a bound state of two identical bosons must be even under spatial inversion. Similarly, we must have $`G(𝐩,𝐪,𝐤)=G(𝐩,𝐪,𝐤)`$. Furthermore, there is no loss of generality in assuming that $`G(𝐩,𝐤,𝐪)`$ is invariant under any permutation of the three momenta $`𝐩`$, $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐪`$. (Of course, because of the momentum-conserving delta function, the function $`G`$ really involves only two independent momentum arguments.)

The $`B`$ and $`G`$ functions are determined from the variational principle

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_2|HE|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=0$$
(8)
which provides two coupled eigenvalue equations:

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_2|HE|\mathrm{\Psi }_2}{\delta B^{}(𝐤)}=0$$
(9)
$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_2|HE|\mathrm{\Psi }_2}{\delta G^{}(𝐩,𝐪,𝐤)}=0$$
(10)
Explicitly, these equations are:

$`\left(2\omega _k{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{\omega _k}}E\right)B(𝐤)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{64\pi ^3\omega _k}}{\displaystyle d^3p\frac{B(𝐩)}{\omega _p}}+`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda v}{8\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle }d^3p{\displaystyle }d^3q\delta ^3(𝐤+𝐩+𝐪)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\omega _k\omega _p\omega _q}}}G(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (12)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(\omega _i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{2\omega _i}}\right)E\right]G(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda v}{(4!)\pi ^{3/2}\sqrt{\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}B(𝐤_i)`$ $`+`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{64\pi ^3\sqrt{\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle d^3pd^3q\delta ^3(𝐤_i+𝐩+𝐪)\left(\frac{\omega _i}{\omega _p\omega _q}\right)^{1/2}G(𝐤_i,𝐩,𝐪)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (14)
where $`\omega _i\omega _{k_i}`$. These equations are equivalent to Eqs. (8),(9) of Ref., but their structure appears considerably simpler because we have taken advantage of the symmetry properties mentioned above. We can achieve an exact decoupling of these equations by the following algebraic manipulations. First, we introduce the auxiliary function

$$A(𝐤)=\omega _kd^3pd^3q\delta ^3(𝐤+𝐩+𝐪)\frac{G(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪)}{\sqrt{\omega _k\omega _p\omega _q}}.$$
(15)
so that the first equation becomes

$$\frac{3\lambda v}{8\pi ^{3/2}\omega _k}A(𝐤)=\left(E2\omega _k+\frac{\delta m^2}{\omega _k}\right)B(𝐤)\frac{\lambda }{64\pi ^3\omega _k}\frac{d^3p}{\omega _p}B(𝐩)$$
(16)
Similarly, re-writing its last term in terms of $`A(𝐤_i)`$, Eq. (14) becomes

$$G(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3)=\frac{\lambda }{64\pi ^3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3}}\frac{_{i=1}^3\left[A(𝐤_i)+(8\pi ^{3/2}/3)vB(𝐤_i)\right]}{\left[_{i=1}^3\left(\omega _i\frac{\delta m^2}{2\omega _i}\right)E\right]}.$$
(17)
Note that the resulting form of $`G`$ manifestly respects the symmetry properties invoked earlier. Inserting this equation back into Eq. (15), the second eigenvalue equation Eq. (14) is equivalent to

$`A(𝐤)+(8\pi ^{3/2}/3){\displaystyle \frac{J(𝐤)}{1+J(𝐤)}}vB(𝐤)+`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _k}{1+J(𝐤)}}{\displaystyle d^3pd^3q\delta ^3(𝐤+𝐩+𝐪)K(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪)\left[A(𝐩)+(8\pi ^{3/2}/3)vB(𝐩)\right]}=0`$ (19)
where the kernel $`K(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪)`$ is wholly symmetric:

$$K(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3)=\frac{\lambda }{64\pi ^3}\frac{1}{\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3\left[_{i=1}^3\left(\omega _i\frac{\delta m^2}{2\omega _i}\right)E\right]}$$
(20)
and

$$J(𝐤)=\omega _kd^3pK(𝐤,𝐩,𝐤𝐩)$$
(21)
is a logarithmically divergent integral. We shall regularize it with an energy cutoff, $`\sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2}<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The eigenvalue equations (16), (19) may now be easily decoupled by replacing $`A`$ from Eq. (16) into Eq. (19). In this way, we obtain the following integral equation for $`B`$

$`\left[E2\omega _k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _k}}\left(\delta m^2+\lambda v^2{\displaystyle \frac{J(𝐤)}{1+J(𝐤)}}\right)\right]B(𝐤)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{64\pi ^3\omega _k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+3J(𝐤)}{1+J(𝐤)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{\omega _p}B(𝐩)}`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1+J(𝐤))}}{\displaystyle d^3pK(𝐤,𝐩,𝐤𝐩)B(𝐩)\left(\delta m^2+\lambda v^2+\omega _p(E2\omega _p)\right)}.`$ (23)
For an $`s`$-wave $`B`$ function, the angular integration can be performed analytically, yielding a one-dimensional integral equation for $`B`$ which can be solved by numerical methods. There are two main conceptual problems that must first be dealt with (i) the mass renormalization parameter $`\delta m^2`$ needs to be determined, and (ii) the integral $`J`$ is logarithmically divergent and requires regularization, say with an energy cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This last point has to do with the physical interpretation of the whole theory. The current orthodox viewpoint is that the original $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ theory is only an effective theory, valid up to some finite energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that acts as a cutoff. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is then another parameter of the theory, in addition to $`m_0`$ and $`\lambda `$. We shall adopt this viewpoint in this paper. (For a heterodox viewpoint, see Ref. .)

Mass renormalization is crucial since the existence of bound states hinges on the comparison between the energy $`E`$ and the energy of two free bosons at rest, $`2m`$. Any attractive self-interaction that tends to bind two particles will also give rise to a reduction of the physical free-particle mass compared to the classical mass $`m_0`$. Thus it would not be legitimate to ignore mass renormalization and just impose $`m=m_0`$.

The form of the left-hand side of equation (23) suggests  that the desirable mass renormalization is such that the combination

$$\left(\delta m^2+\lambda v^2\frac{J(k)}{1+J(k)}\right)$$
(24)
should vanish. Since $`m^2`$ should not be $`k`$ dependent, we define

$$\delta m^2=\lambda v^2\frac{J(0)}{1+J(0)}.$$
(25)
For an infinite cutoff, $`J\mathrm{}`$ and we would get

$$m^2=m_0^2\lambda v^2$$
(26)
which is a finite mass renormalization. \[In DLD, due to their other approximations, the $`1+J(0)`$ denominator is absent in Eq. (25), so that they found an infinite mass renormalization.\]

In the next section, we will show that the above mass renormalization is justified by considering a variational calculation of a one-particle state.

## III  Single-particle mass renormalization

The mass renormalization prescription (25) may be recovered in an analogous self-consistent variational procedure. In this case, the trial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤`$ for a single boson with mass $`m`$ and momentum $`𝐤`$ is taken to be

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤=C(𝐤)a_𝐤^{}|0+d^3pD(𝐤,𝐩)a_{𝐩+𝐤}^{}a_𝐩^{}|0$$
(27)
where $`D(𝐤,𝐩)=D(𝐤,𝐩𝐤)`$. The variational principle now requires that

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤|HE(𝐤)|\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤=0$$
(28)
which leads to the coupled eigenvalue equations

$$C(𝐤)\left(\omega _𝐤\frac{\delta m^2}{2\omega _𝐤}E(𝐤)\right)+\frac{\lambda v}{8\pi ^{3/2}}\frac{d^3pD(𝐤,𝐩)}{\sqrt{\omega _𝐤\omega _𝐩\omega _{𝐤+𝐩}}}=0$$
(29)
$`D(𝐤,𝐪)\left[\omega _𝐪+\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _𝐪}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}}}\right)E(𝐤)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{64\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3pD(𝐤,𝐩)}{\sqrt{\omega _𝐪\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}\omega _𝐩\omega _{𝐩+𝐤}}}}+`$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda v}{16\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C(𝐤)}{\sqrt{\omega _𝐤\omega _𝐪\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}}}}=0`$ . (31)
Eliminating the integral we obtain

$$\frac{D(𝐤,𝐪)}{C(𝐤)}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^{3/2}v}\sqrt{\frac{\omega _𝐤}{\omega _𝐪\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}}}\left[\frac{\omega _𝐤\frac{\delta m^2}{2\omega _𝐤}\frac{\lambda v^2}{2\omega _𝐤}E(𝐤)}{\omega _𝐪+\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}\frac{\delta m^2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\omega _𝐪}+\frac{1}{\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}}\right)E(𝐤)}\right].$$
(32)
Substituting back in Eq. (29) then for $`C0`$ we find

$$E(𝐤)=\omega _𝐤\frac{1}{2\omega _𝐤}\left[\delta m^2+\lambda v^2\frac{J_0(𝐤)}{1+J_0(𝐤)}\right]$$
(33)
where

$$J_0(𝐤)=\frac{\lambda }{64\pi ^3}^\mathrm{\Lambda }d^3p\frac{1}{\omega _𝐩\omega _{𝐤+𝐩}\left[\omega _𝐩+\omega _{𝐤+𝐩}\frac{\delta m^2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\omega _𝐩}+\frac{1}{\omega _{𝐤+𝐩}}\right)E(𝐤)\right]}.$$
(34)
This has a similar structure and the same ultraviolet behaviour as the integral $`J(𝐤)`$ of Eq. (21). In principle, the presence of the single particle energy $`E(𝐤)`$ in the denominator requires us to solve Eq. (33) and Eq. (34) self-consistently. However, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m`$ (as it should be)

$$J_0(𝐤)J(𝐤)\frac{\lambda }{128\pi ^3}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^3k}{|𝐤|^3}\frac{\lambda }{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m)+\text{finite terms}$$
(35)
In such a limit, we self-consistently obtain $`E(𝐤)=\omega _𝐤`$ provided we take

$$\delta m^2=\lambda v^2\frac{J_0}{1+J_0}$$
(36)
to be compared to Eq. (25). Once more for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m`$ we recover the mass renormalization prescription (26).

Full consistency would also require that when $`E(𝐤)=\omega _𝐤`$ the function $`D`$ should vanish. In fact, since $`\omega _𝐤`$ is the energy of a single particle state $`|𝐤=a_𝐤^{}|0`$ with mass $`m`$, the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤`$ can have a mass $`m`$ and a Lorentz-covariant dispersion relation only when $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤=|𝐤`$. This requirement is not entirely trivial: the mass renormalization prescription (36) is just what we need in order to guarantee that the single particle state $`|𝐤`$ effectively is the lower energy one-particle state for the full interacting Hamiltonian (6). Inserting Eq. (33) and (36) into Eq. (32), we find that the ratio $`D/C0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ as we expected. In other words that means we find a quantum-field renormalization constant $`Z=1`$.

It is instructive examining the same result from the point of view of standard perturbation theory. If there were some “rule” forbidding the existence of states with more than two particles in the Fock space, then the variational trial state (27) would lead to an exact result. The same result should be achievable by perturbation theory provided that we sum all Feynman diagrams whose intermediate states do not contain more than two particles. However, in the self-consistent variational procedure the mass of the single particle state $`|𝐤`$ is supposed to be the true physical mass $`mm_0`$. In the language of perturbation theory this is equivalent to associate a renormalized propagator with each internal line of Feynman diagrams. The easiest way to do that is by re-writing the Lagrangian (1) as

$$=_0+_1+_2$$
(37)
where $`_0`$ is the zeroth-order non-interacting part

$$_0={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu h_R^\mu h_R{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2h_R^2$$
(38)
$`_1`$ is an interaction part contributing at tree level

$$_1={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(Z1)_\mu h_R^\mu h_R{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(Z1)m^2h_R^2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}Z\delta m^2h_R^2$$
(39)
and $`_2`$ is the interaction

$$_2=\frac{1}{3!}\lambda vZ^{3/2}h_R^3\frac{1}{4!}Z^2\lambda h_R^4$$
(40)
Here $`h_R`$ is a renormalized field $`h_R=h/\sqrt{Z}`$. Imposing that the renormalized propagator has a pole at $`p^2=m^2`$ with unit residue gives two conditions:

$$Z\delta m^2=\mathrm{\Pi }_{loop}^{}(m^2)$$
(41)
and

$$Z=1+\frac{d}{dp^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{loop}^{}(p^2)|_{m^2}$$
(42)
where $`p^2=𝐩^2\omega _𝐩^2`$, and $`i(2\pi )^4\mathrm{\Pi }_{loop}^{}(p^2)`$ is the sum of all one-particle-irreducible diagrams containing loops. Such diagrams can only arise from the lagrangian part $`_2`$. In our reduced Fock space the only diagrams contributing are the bubble-chain diagrams reported in Fig.1. These are all naively divergent but, if a regularization prescription allows their resummation, their infinite sum yields a finite contribution

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{loop}^{}(p^2)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{1loop}^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{1loop}^{}(p^2)\left[\frac{1}{2}Z^2\lambda I(p^2)\right]+\mathrm{\Pi }_{1loop}^{}(p^2)\left[\frac{1}{2}Z^2\lambda I(p^2)\right]^2+\mathrm{}$$
(43)
where the one-loop term is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{1loop}^{}(p^2)=\frac{1}{2}(Z^3\lambda ^2v^2)I(p^2)$$
(44)
and $`I(p^2)`$ is the divergent integral

$$I(p^2)=\frac{d^4q}{i(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{\left(q^2+m^2iϵ\right)\left((p+q)^2+m^2iϵ\right)}$$
(45)
The infinite series (43) can be exactly summed up

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{loop}^{}(p^2)=(Z\lambda v^2)\left[\frac{\frac{1}{2}\lambda Z^2I(p^2)}{1+\frac{1}{2}\lambda Z^2I(p^2)}\right]$$
(46)
In order to mantain Lorentz-covariance, the integral (45) can be evaluated by dimensional regularization. By use of the Feynman formula and Wick rotation, in a $`d`$ dimensional Euclidean space the integral reads

$$I(p^2)=\frac{\pi ^{d/2}}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2d/2)_0^1\left[m^2+p^2x(1x)\right]^{\frac{d}{2}2}𝑑x$$
(47)
For $`d=4+ϵ`$ and $`ϵ0`$ we obtain

$$I(p^2)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2ϵ}\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left[\gamma +\mathrm{ln}\pi +_0^1𝑑x\mathrm{ln}\left(m^2+p^2x(1x)\right)\right]+𝒪(ϵ)$$
(48)
Insertion in Eq. (46) gives

$$\frac{d}{dp^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{loop}^{}(p^2)|_{m^2}ϵ^2$$
(49)
and from Eq. (42) then

$$Z=1+𝒪(ϵ^2)$$
(50)
while from Eq. (41) the mass renormalization parameter reads

$$\delta m^2=\lambda v^2\left[\frac{\lambda /(16\pi ^2ϵ)}{\lambda /(16\pi ^2ϵ)1}\right]$$
(51)
Thus, in the physical $`d=4`$ space, we recover for $`ϵ0`$ the mass renormalization prescription of Eq. (26) and $`Z=1`$.

## IV  Search for Higgs-Higgs bound states

In the previous sections we described the variational method and discussed its internal consistency from a general point of view. So far the three parameters $`m_0^2`$, $`v`$ and $`\lambda `$ have been viewed as independent and we have not specialized to any particular physical problem. We now wish to use the method described in section II to search for Higgs-Higgs bound states in the Higgs sector of the electroweak theory.

The scalar sector of the electroweak theory has the form:

$$={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\frac{\lambda }{4!}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2v^2)^2+\mathrm{const}.$$
(52)
Defining the ‘Higgs’ field $`h`$ by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=v+h`$, we obtain the original Lagrangian (1) with the parameters related by

$$m_0^2=\frac{1}{3}\lambda v^2.$$
(53)
It can be shown that the same relation holds for $`v`$ being the minimum of the Gaussian effective potential. In the standard interpretation, we also have a large but finite cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The theory is approximately Lorentz invariant for energies small compared to a finite energy cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The vacuum value $`v`$ is fixed empirically in terms of the Fermi constant $`G_F`$

$$2v^2=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{G_F}$$
(54)
Thus the bare mass $`m_0`$ is proportional to the square root of the coupling $`\lambda `$. The physical model is entirely described by two independent energy scales: the energy cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the bare mass $`m_0`$ which also fixes the coupling strength through Eq. (53).

For a large cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, according to Eq. (26), we expect a mass correction $`\delta m^2\lambda v^2`$ which overcomes the tree-level mass (53). Since $`m^2`$ is positive definite we expect that something should prevent it from becoming negative. In fact the general discussion of section II must be modified when the physical mass $`m`$ approaches zero. At the point $`m0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ the integral $`J(0)`$ is not analytical, and some extra care is required in handling the two limits. As previously discussed $`J(0)`$ diverges logarithmically according to Eq. (35) for any finite $`m`$, while it vanishes linearly for $`m0`$ at any fixed cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus for any large but finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the coupled equations (21) and (25) must be solved together yielding a real cut-off dependent mass $`m(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Of course at any finite cut-off such equations mantain a $`k`$-dependence since the theory is not Lorentz invariant. We define $`m`$ as the $`𝐤=0`$ value corresponding to the energy required to create a boson at rest. For $`𝐤=0`$ a generic scattering solution of the integral equation (23) has $`E=2m`$ where $`m`$ is determined from Eq. (25) by insertion of Eq. (53)

$$m^2=m_0^2\left[\frac{12J(0)}{1+J(0)}\right]$$
(55)
while $`J(0)`$ is the integral (21) of the kernel (20) evaluated at $`𝐤_1=0`$ and at $`E=2m`$:

$$J(0)=\frac{\lambda }{32\pi ^2}_1^g\frac{\sqrt{x^21}}{x^2\alpha x\beta }𝑑x$$
(56)
where $`g=\mathrm{\Lambda }/m`$, $`\alpha =(3m_0^2/m^2)/4`$ and $`\beta =(1m_0^2/m^2)/2`$.

The two coupled equations (55) and (56) give the physical mass $`m`$. The integral in Eq. (56) can be evaluated analytically:

$$J(0)=\frac{3m_0^2}{32\pi ^2v^2}f(g),$$
(57)
where

$`f(g)=\mathrm{ln}\left(g+\sqrt{g^21}\right)`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _\pm ^21}}{\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1g\gamma _\pm +\sqrt{g^21}\sqrt{\gamma _\pm ^21}\right)`$ (58)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _\pm ^21}}{\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1g\gamma _\pm \sqrt{g^21}\sqrt{\gamma _\pm ^21}\right),`$ (59)
and $`\gamma _\pm =(\alpha \pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }})/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\alpha ^2+4\beta `$.

A numerical solution for $`m`$ as a function of the coupling parameter $`m_0`$ is reported in Fig. 2 for several cut-off values. In the weak-coupling limit, for $`m_0`$ smaller than $`0.3`$ TeV, we recover the perturbative solution $`mm_0`$ which holds up to a quite huge $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. That is equivalent to neglecting $`J(0)`$ altogether in Eq. (55). For larger couplings the solution deviates from the perturbative regime and the physical mass $`m`$ is heavily reduced and strongly dependent on the cut-off choice. Notably in the range $`1`$ TeV$`<m_0<2`$ TeV, where several authors find Higgs-Higgs bound states, the physical mass is spread over a large energy range going from $`m=m_0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=m_0`$ to $`mm_0/100`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=35`$ TeV. However the upper bound $`m=m_0`$ is only reached for an unphysical cut-off equal to the mass, which makes the integral $`J`$ vanish. A cross-over is observed at a critical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=3.05`$ TeV from a monotonic increasing behaviour of $`m`$ versus $`m_0`$, to a non-monotonic beahviour with $`m`$ rising to a maximum and then decreasing for larger $`m_0`$. The maximum value of $`m`$ never exceeds the critical value $`m_c=1.1`$ TeV (which is reached at a coupling $`m_0=4`$ TeV) for any choice of coupling and cut-off. Thus, for any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>3.05`$ TeV and any $`m_0`$, we always find a physical mass $`m<1.1`$ TeV.

Moreover, in the strong coupling regime the physical mass becomes very small: in such strong-coupling limit a simple analytical solution may be found by requiring that $`mm_0`$ and expanding both equations (55) and (56) in powers of $`m^2/m_0^2`$. By use of the analytical expression (59), the integral (56) may be written as

$$J(0)=\frac{3m\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi ^2v^2}+𝒪(m^2/m_0^2)$$
(60)
which to first order in $`m`$ does not depend on the coupling $`m_0`$. Eq. (55) may be inverted and to the same order in $`m^2`$ reads

$$J(0)=\frac{1}{2}+𝒪(m^2/m_0^2)$$
(61)
Eliminating $`J(0)`$ yields

$$m\frac{4}{3}\pi ^2\frac{v^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(62)
which is consistent with our assumption that $`mm_0`$ provided that $`m_04\pi ^2v^2/(3\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ or explicitly $`m_0\mathrm{\Lambda }0.8`$ TeV<sup>2</sup>. When such condition is satisfied the physical mass does not depend on the coupling and tends to a finite limit proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$. This behaviour is evident in Fig. 2.

For completeness we should mention that whenever $`m_0>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a second larger solution for the physical mass $`m`$ comes out from the coupled equations (55), (56), but such solutions probably have no physical meaning. We remark that the range $`m_0>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ could be of physical interest since the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ should be compared to the physical mass $`m`$ which is generally significantly smaller than the coupling parameter $`m_0`$.

Returning to the bound-state problem, let us insert the numerical solution of the coupled equations (55), (57) into the integral equation (23). Neglecting the slight $`𝐤`$-dependence of $`J(𝐤)J(0)`$ (which is the only approximation we are making apart from the choice of the trial state) we obtain the following integral equation

$$(2\omega _kE)B(𝐤)=d^3p𝒦(𝐤,𝐩,𝐤𝐩)B(𝐩),$$
(63)
where the kernel $`𝒦`$ is defined as

$`𝒦(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^3\omega _k}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m_0^2+m^2}{v^2}}\right)\times `$ (64)
$`\times \left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{5m_0^22m^2}{2m_0^2+m^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _p}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\omega _p\omega _q}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2+2m_0^2+\omega _p(E2\omega _p)}{\left[\omega _k+\omega _p+\omega _q+\frac{m_0^2m^2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\omega _k}+\frac{1}{\omega _p}+\frac{1}{\omega _q}\right)E\right]}}\right\}`$ . (65)
We notice that the second term inside the brackets contains an attractive part plus an energy dependent part proportional to $`(E2\omega _p)`$ which is always repulsive if $`E<2m`$, and thus weakens the bonding of any bound state. It is instructive to see how the approximate integral equation of DLD  can be recovered from our almost exact treatment of the variational method. That can be done by taking the perturbative limit ($`J(0)=0`$, $`m=m_0`$) and by neglecting the energy dependent repulsive part proportional to $`(E2\omega _p)`$ in the second term of the kernel according to their approximation $`E2\omega _p`$. Moreover, since they also take $`E\omega _p+\omega _k\omega _q+\omega _k`$, the denominator of the second term is approximated as

$$\frac{1}{\omega _k+\omega _p+\omega _qE}\frac{1}{\omega _p}\frac{1}{\omega _q}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\omega _p}+\frac{1}{\omega _q}\right)$$
(66)
yielding the approximation

$$𝒦(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪)\frac{\lambda }{64\pi ^3}\frac{3m^2}{\omega _k\omega _p}\left[\frac{1}{3m^2}\frac{1}{\omega _q^2}\frac{1}{\omega _q\omega _p}\right]$$
(67)
which is Eq. (16) of Ref.. This approximation requires $`mm_0`$, which is valid only in the region $`m_0<0.3`$ TeV, according to our numerical results in Fig.2. DLD found bound-state solutions with the kernel (67), but only for larger couplings $`m_0>0.9`$ TeV; this is well beyond the perturbative regime , and well beyond the region of validity of their approximations.

To address the problem of the existence of bound-states beyond the perturbative regime, we must use the full integral equation (63). The most interesting case is an $`s`$-wave solution, and in that case the integration over angles may be carried out exactly yielding a one-dimensional integral equation. We change the integration variables according to

$$d^3p\mathrm{}=\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{\omega _k^2m^2}}_m^{\mathrm{}}\omega _p𝑑\omega _p_\omega _{}^{\omega _+}\omega _q𝑑\omega _q\mathrm{},$$
(68)
where

$$\omega _\pm =\sqrt{\omega _k^2+\omega _p^2m^2\pm 2\sqrt{(\omega _k^2m^2)(\omega _p^2m^2)}}.$$
(69)
Then integrating over $`\omega _q`$ gives

$$(2\omega _kE)B(𝐤)=_m^\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega _k,\omega _p)B(𝐩)𝑑\omega _p,$$
(70)
with

$`(\omega _k,\omega _p)={\displaystyle \frac{2m_0^2+m^2}{16\pi ^2v^2\omega _k}}\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{5m_0^22m^2}{2m_0^2+m^2}}\right)\sqrt{\omega _p^2m^2}+`$ (71)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_0^2+m^2+\omega _p(E2\omega _p)}{\sqrt{\omega _k^2m^2}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_+}{\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _+\mathrm{\Omega }_+}{\omega _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_+}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}}{\omega _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}}}\right)]\}`$ (72)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm `$ are the poles of the kernel $`𝒦`$ in the variable $`\omega _q`$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E\omega _k\omega _p}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2m^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _p}}\right)+`$ (73)
$`\pm `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\left[E\omega _k\omega _p{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2m^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _p}}\right)\right]^22m_0^2+2m^2}.`$ (75)
The one-dimensional integral equation (70) may be solved numerically by standard matrix techniques. (One must first choose the parameters $`m_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and find the corresponding physical mass $`m`$ from the coupled equations (55), (57).) We can describe three different scenarios:

i) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=3.05`$ TeV (small cut-off). Since $`m`$ is a monotonic increasing function of the coupling strength $`m_0`$, both $`m`$ and $`m_0`$ must be small compared to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this weak-coupling limit there are no bound-state solution and the lower eigenvalue of Eq.(70) is the free particle energy $`E=2m`$.

ii) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, $`m_0<2`$ TeV (large cut-off and moderately strong coupling). Beyond the critical value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=3.05`$ TeV the Higgs mass $`m`$ is not a monotonic increasing function of the coupling strength $`m_0`$ (see Fig.2). This strength can be large since $`m`$ is bounded and never comparable to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Beyond the weak-coupling limit, where there are no bound-state solutions, an intermediate range can be described for $`m_012`$ TeV. In this range non-perturbative effects are evident since $`m`$ is a decreasing function of the bare mass $`m_0`$ (as shown in Fig.2). In this range bound state solutions have been found by several authors. However the strong reduction of the physical mass $`m`$, in comparison with the bare mass $`m_0`$, rules out the existence of bound states with $`E<2m`$ in this regime.

iii) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, $`m_0>2`$ TeV (very strong coupling). For very large $`m_0`$ the renormalized Higgs mass $`m`$ saturates at the finite value given by Eq.(62) (see also Fig.2). A further increase of the coupling strength allows the occurrence of bound-state solutions whose precise onset depends on the chosen energy cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In Fig.3 we show the binding energy $`(E2m)`$, in units of $`2m`$, for a typical cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=4`$ TeV, just above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. An eigenvalue $`E`$ smaller than $`2m`$ appears at $`m_0=2.35`$ TeV, and the binding energy reaches the bootstrap point $`(E2m)/(2m)=0.5`$ at $`m_0=3.5`$ TeV.

Despite the huge couplings required for binding, the corresponding physical mass is relatively small compared to that found in previous works. Fig.4 reports the binding energy versus $`m`$ (physical mass) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=4`$ TeV. The onset of the bound-state solution is at $`m=519`$ GeV, while the mass bootstrap point is reached at $`m=386`$ GeV. We notice that the binding energy now increases with decreasing $`m`$. Moreover, according to Eq.(62), an even smaller mass is required for larger choices of the energy cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

At the light of our study a Higgs-Higgs bound state would be conceivable for $`m100500`$ GeV provided that the coupling is very strong $`m_02`$ TeV. We stress the role played by mass renormalization in determining both, the shift of bound states towards higher coupling strengths, and the corresponding reduction of the physical mass required for bonding. Most of the previous calculations should be revised at the light of the present result in order to establish if mass renormalization has been correctly addressed. We just mention Rupp’s Bethe-Salpeter approach where the chosen subtraction point gives $`m=m_0`$ at any coupling.

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Maurizio Consoli and Paul Stevenson for their generous assistance in this research.


text:
# The resummed quark form factor in dimensional regularization

## 1 Introduction

The resummation of perturbation theory for the form factor of charged gauge particles has a long history, and has gone through several levels of refinement, starting with the seminal work of Sudakov . The complete exponentiation of the form factor can be achieved by deriving and solving an evolution equation governing its energy dependence, as was done in Ref. , by several authors, using different techniques. An instructive introduction to some of these techniques can be found in Ref. . The usefulness of dimensional regularization for the implementation and the solution of the evolution equation was first noticed in Ref. , where an explicit exponentiated solution for the form factor, directly comparable with diagrammatic calculations, was given, and also the ratio of the timelike to the spacelike form factor was computed. This solution expresses the logarithm of the form factor in terms of integrals over the scale $`\mu ^2`$ of the running coupling, with an integration region extending all the way to $`\mu ^2=0`$, as always in resummed expressions for QCD amplitudes and cross sections. In $`d=4`$, these integrals are ill–defined because of the Landau pole singularity in the running coupling, and typically the ensuing ambiguity in the resummed expression is taken as an estimate for the size of nonperturbative, power–suppressed effects . More recently , I have shown that dimensional continuation provides a natural and gauge invariant way to regularize the Landau singularity; the integrals over the scale of the coupling can then be explicitly evaluated in terms of analytic functions of the coupling and of the space–time dimension, which are renormalization group invariant by inspection to the desired accuracy in the QCD $`\beta `$ function. Here, I will briefly review the results of Ref. , emphasizing the special role played by dimensional regularization and the fate of the Landau pole.

## 2 Resumming the form factor with dimensional regularization

For definiteness, consider the timelike electromagnetic quark form factor in dimensionally regularized massless QCD, defined by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p_1,p_2;\mu ^2,ϵ)=0|J_\mu (0)|p_1,p_2`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}ee_q\overline{v}(p_2)\gamma _\mu u(p_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ),`$
where $`J_\mu `$ is the electromagnetic current, $`Q^2=(p_1+p_2)^2`$, and $`ϵ=2d/2<0`$ to regulate IR divergences in the renormalized theory. As described in Ref. , the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the form factor is determined by an evolution equation of the form

$`Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{Q^2}}\mathrm{log}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[K(ϵ,\alpha _s(\mu ^2))+G({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)\right].`$
The function $`G`$ contains the $`Q^2`$ dependence and is finite in the limit $`ϵ0`$, while the function $`K`$ is a pure counterterm; furthermore, $`K`$ and $`G`$ must renormalize additively with the same anomalous dimension $`\gamma _K`$ to preserve the renormalization group invariance of the full form factor: thus, $`dG/d\mathrm{ln}\mu =dK/d\mathrm{ln}\mu =\gamma _K(\alpha _s)`$. The functions $`K`$, $`G`$ and $`\gamma _K`$ are perturbatively calculable and known to two loops.

Dimensional regularization affects Eq. (2) in two crucial ways. First, renormalization group evolution is dictated by the $`d`$–dimensional $`\beta `$ function,

$$\beta (ϵ,\alpha _s)=\mu \frac{\alpha _s}{\mu }=2ϵ\alpha _s+\widehat{\beta }(\alpha _s),$$
(2.3)
where $`\widehat{\beta }(\alpha _s)`$ is the usual $`\beta `$ function in $`d=4`$. As a consequence, for example, the one–loop running coupling takes the form

$`\overline{\alpha }({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mu _0^2}},\alpha _s(\mu _0^2),ϵ)=\alpha _s(\mu _0^2)[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mu _0^2}}\right)^ϵ`$ (2.4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}(1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mu _0^2}}\right)^ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{b_0}{4\pi }}\alpha _s(\mu _0^2)]^1,`$
with $`b_0=(11C_A2n_f)/3`$. The second effect of dimensional regularization is that one may explicitly solve the evolution equation (2) with the simple boundary condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)=1.$$
(2.5)
This can be seen by considering the perturbative expansion for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q^2)`$, in which each term must be proportional to a positive integer power of $`(\mu ^2/(Q^2))^ϵ`$, or alternatively by noting that the $`d`$–dimensional running coupling in Eq. (2.4) vanishes, when $`\mu ^20`$, as $`\mu ^{2ϵ}`$. One can then solve Eq. (2) obtaining

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)=\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi ^2}{\xi ^2}}`$
$`[K(ϵ,\alpha _s(\mu ^2))+G(1,\overline{\alpha }({\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ),ϵ)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\xi ^2}^{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda ^2}{\lambda ^2}}\gamma _K\left(\overline{\alpha }({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)\right)]\}.`$
Eq. (2) was used in Ref.  to derive an explicit representation for the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q^2)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q^2)`$, which is phenomenologically relevant beacuse it enters directly the resummed partonic cross section of the Drell–Yan process .

A further illustration of the power of dimensional regularization is given by the computation of the “counterterm” function $`K(ϵ,\alpha _s)`$ . In a minimal scheme, $`K`$ depends on $`\mu `$ only through the coupling $`\alpha _s(\mu ^2)`$; thus, its RG equation becomes a recursion relation, expressing all higher order poles in terms of the perturbative coefficients of the simple pole, these in turn being determined by the anomalous dimension $`\gamma _K`$. In particular, writing

$`K(ϵ,\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝒦_m(ϵ,\alpha _s),`$ (2.7)
$`𝒦_m(ϵ,\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}K_n^{(n+m)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^{n+m}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^n}},`$
one observes that all leading poles ($`m=0`$) are determined by one loop calculations, while in general the coefficients of the poles contributing to $`𝒦_m`$ require a calculation to $`m+1`$ loops. It turns out  that the recursion relation determining the coefficients $`K_n^{(m)}`$, which depends on the $`\beta `$ function given by Eq. (2.3), can be solved completely, including all orders in $`\widehat{\beta }(\alpha _s)`$. Furthermore, all the resulting series of poles $`𝒦_m(ϵ,\alpha _s)`$ can be summed, and yield analytic functions of $`\alpha _s`$ and $`ϵ`$ that are regular as $`ϵ0`$ for $`m>0`$. The only singularity in the resummed expression for $`K(ϵ,\alpha _s)`$ is logarithmic and completely determined by the one–loop $`\beta `$ function and the one–loop coefficient in the anomalous dimension $`\gamma _K`$. Specifically, including only one–loop results, one finds

$$K_n^{(m)}=\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{b_0}{4}\right)^{n1}\gamma _K^{(mn+1)},$$
(2.8)
which is exact for $`n=m`$ and implies

$$𝒦_0(ϵ,\alpha _s)=\frac{2\gamma _K^{(1)}}{b_0}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{b_0\alpha _s}{4\pi ϵ}\right).$$
(2.9)
Notice that the function $`𝒦_0(ϵ,\alpha _s)`$ has a cut in the $`ϵ`$ complex plane running from $`ϵ=b_0\alpha _s/(4\pi )`$ to $`ϵ=0^{}`$. This cut is a direct consequence of the Landau singularity in the one–loop running coupling, as I will discuss in the next section.

## 3 The fate of the Landau pole

To understand why dimensional continuation allows for such explicit evaluations of resummed quantities in QCD, one may consider the one–loop $`\beta `$ function at $`ϵ<0`$, as given by Eq. (2.3). It is apparent that instead of the usual (double) zero at $`\alpha _s=0`$, the dimensionally continued $`\beta `$ function has two distinct zeroes, one at the origin and one located at $`\alpha _s=4\pi ϵ/b_0`$. For $`ϵ<0`$, this second zero is the asymptotically free one, while at the origin in the $`\alpha _s`$ plane the $`\beta `$ function vanishes with positive derivative, as it would in a QED-like theory. This is a different way of expressing the fact that the running coupling vanishes like a power of the scale for $`ϵ<0`$, as pointed out in Section 2***It should be noted that the use of dimensional regularization in this spirit is a customary tool in statistical field theory . The presence of the second, asymptotically free zero of the $`\beta `$ function is manifest in the explicit expression, Eq. (2.4), for the one–loop running coupling. In fact, Eq. (2.4), just like the four–dimensional running coupling, has a simple pole in the $`\mu ^2`$ complex plane, located at

$$\mu ^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2Q^2\left(1+\frac{4\pi ϵ}{b_0\alpha _s(Q^2)}\right)^{1/ϵ},$$
(3.10)
which can be used to define the coupling, just as in conventional dimensional transmutation,

$$\alpha _s(Q^2)=\frac{4\pi ϵ}{b_0\left[\left(\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)^ϵ1\right]}.$$
(3.11)
What has changed as an effect of dimensional continuation is the fact that now the Landau pole is not necessarily located at real values of the renormalization scale. In fact, for $`ϵ<b_0\alpha _s/(4\pi )`$, $`ϵ1/n`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ acquires a nonvanishing imaginary part. For such (large) values of the space–time dimension, the coupling decreases smoothly to zero, starting from the boundary value $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$, without encountering any singularity for real values of the scale. On the other hand, when the dimension of space time is sufficiently close to $`d=4`$, the Landau pole migrates to the real axis in the $`\mu ^2`$ complex plane, which is also the integration contour for resummed expressions such as Eq. (2). As a result, the analytic expressions obtained by evaluating the integrals will develop a cut, which might appropriately be called Landau cut.

One sees that dimensional continuation succeds in regularizing the Landau singularity, arising from resummation, much in the same way as it regularizes ultraviolet and infrared divergences in fixed order perturbative calculations: instead of an ill–defined expression, we will now find an analytic function of the coupling and of the space–time dimension, with a specified singularity (in this case a cut) when the physical value $`d=4`$ is approached. Of course, the singularity has not been eliminated, since it has a physical meaning and is ultimately related to confinement; rather, the singularity is now parametrized in a gauge–invariant manner, which might provide insights into nonperturbative corrections to resummed physical quantities, if the method can be applied to infrared safe observables.

## 4 One–loop analytic resummation

Given the discussion in the previous section, one expects that it should be possible to evaluate explicitly the integrals in Eq. (2). Furthermore, using for the running coupling the solution of the RG equation to a given order in $`\widehat{\beta }(\alpha _s)`$, one expects the result to be RG invariant, i.e. independent of the renormalization scale $`\mu ^2`$, to the same accuracy. One can readily verify these claims at the one–loop level. Using Eq. (2.4), and changing variables according to

$$\lambda ^2z=\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)^ϵ1,$$
(4.12)
the anomalous dimension integral is easily performed, yielding a logarithm. The logarithm is not integrable over the scale $`\xi ^2`$ because of a singularity at $`\xi ^2=0`$, which however is cancelled by the $`\xi `$–independent contribution of the counterterm function $`K`$, Eq. (2.9). Inserting the values of the one–loop coefficients of $`K`$, $`\gamma _K`$ and $`G`$, and defining for simplicity

$$a(\mu ^2)=\frac{b_0}{4\pi }\alpha _s(\mu ^2),$$
(4.13)
one finds

$`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{2C_F}{b_0}}`$ (4.14)
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{Li}_2\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{a(\mu ^2)}{a(\mu ^2)+ϵ}}\right]`$
$`C(ϵ)\mathrm{ln}[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{a(\mu ^2)}{a(\mu ^2)+ϵ}}]\},`$
where for clarity I considered the spacelike rather than the timelike form factor, and

$$C(ϵ)=(3ϵ(\zeta (2)8))/2+𝒪(ϵ^2)$$
(4.15)
arises from the one–loop contribution to the function $`G`$.

RG invariance of Eq. (4.14) is readily verified by reexpressing the running coupling in terms of $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$, using Eq. (2.4). One finds that the $`\mu ^2`$ dependence cancels, obtaining

$`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s(\mu ^2),ϵ)=\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1,\alpha _s(Q^2),ϵ)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2C_F}{b_0}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{Li}_2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a(Q^2)}{a(Q^2)+ϵ}}\right]`$ (4.16)
$`+C(ϵ)\mathrm{log}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{a(Q^2)}{ϵ}}]\}.`$
Eq. (4.16) is a striking illustration of the power of dimensional continuation; the resummed form factor has a simple analytic structure, characterized by a cut (the “Landau cut”), which can be taken to run from $`ϵ=a(Q^2)`$ to $`ϵ=0^{}`$, as expected; one can reexpand Eq. (4.16) in powers of $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ for fixed $`ϵ`$ to recover known perturbative results, or to generate the coefficients of all leading and next–to–leading infrared and collinear poles of the form factor; on the other hand, one can examine the behavior of the resummed expression in the vicinity of the physical point $`ϵ=0`$; one finds then

$`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1,\alpha _s(Q^2),ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{2C_F}{b_0}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (2)}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a(Q^2)}}.`$
$`+.({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a(Q^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a(Q^2)}{ϵ}}\right)+𝒪(ϵ)].`$ (4.17)
One observes that the resummation of all leading poles in the logarithm of the form factor gives just a single pole, with a residue independent of the coupling and of the energy, up to logarithmic corrections. As will be seen below, one may conjecture that this is in fact the only pole in the complete perturbative resummation of the logarithm of the form factor. It is also worth noticing that, in the vicinity of $`ϵ=0`$, the form factor contains a finite term of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(c/\alpha _s)`$, which would correspond to a power–behaved contribution of the type $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/Q^2)^c`$ in the four–dimensional theory. Although in the present case this term is of no direct physical significance, being associated with an IR divergent quantity, it is encouraging to see a term of this kind arising in a gauge–invariant way from the present formalism. Finally, it should be mentioned that Eq. (4.16) can be tested by computing the ratio of the timelike to the spacelike form factor, which is found to agree with the results of .

## 5 Two–loop analytic resummation

To generalize to higher perturbative orders the calculation performed in Section 4, one can take advantage of the fact that integrations over the renormalization scale can be replaced by integrations over the coupling itself, using

$$\frac{d\mu }{\mu }=\frac{d\alpha _s}{\beta (ϵ,\alpha _s)},$$
(5.18)
and truncating the perturbative $`\beta `$ function to the desired order. It is easy to reproduce the one–loop result, Eq. (4.16), with this method. At two loops, one must change variables in both scale integrals according to

$$\frac{d\mu ^2}{\mu ^2}=\frac{d\alpha _s}{\alpha _s}\frac{1}{ϵ+\frac{b_0}{4\pi }\alpha _s+\frac{b_1}{4\pi ^2}\alpha _s^2},$$
(5.19)
and of course one must include in the calculation the two–loop coefficients of the functions $`K`$, $`G`$ and $`\gamma _K`$. All integrations can be explicitly performed by partial fractioning, and they yield logarithms and dilogarithms, expressed in terms of the two nontrivial zeroes of the two–loop $`\beta `$ function. Writing

$$a_\pm =\frac{b_0}{2b_1}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1\frac{16ϵb_1}{b_0^2}}\right).$$
(5.20)
one finds

$`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1,\alpha _s(Q^2),ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{b_1(a_+a_{})}}`$
$`\times \{(G^{(1)}(ϵ)+a_+G^{(2)}(ϵ))\mathrm{log}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi a_+}})`$
$`+2(\gamma _K^{(1)}+a_+\gamma _K^{(2)})[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4ϵ}}\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi a_+}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2b_1a_+(a_+a_{})}}\mathrm{log}^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi a_+}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_1a_{}(a_+a_{})}}(\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi a_+\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi (a_+a_{})}}\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{log}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi a_+}}\right)\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)\pi a_{}}{\pi (a_+a_{})}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_+}{a_+a_{}}}\right))]\}+(a_+a_{}).`$ (5.21)
It is fairly straightforward to verify that when the two–loop coefficients $`\{b_1,\gamma _K^{(2)},G^{(2)}(ϵ)\}`$ are taken to zero Eq. (5.21) reduces to Eq. (4.16) . One can also study the behavior of Eq. (5.21) in the vicinity of $`ϵ=0`$; one finds that, as announced, the simple pole in the logarithm of the form factor, given in Eq. (4.17), is not affected by the inclusion of two–loop effects, while the logarithmic singularities are enhanced to $`\mathrm{log}^2`$ strength. This result, together with the all–loop evaluation of the counterterm function $`K`$, strongly suggests that the residue of the simple pole in Eq. (4.17) receives no higher order perturbative corrections.

It is apparent that the calculation leading to Eq. (5.21) can be generalized to any number of loops: with the change of variables in Eq. (5.18), one must deal at most with a double integral of a rational function, which is in general computable in terms of polylogarithms by means of partial fractioning. While this generalization would be purely formal at this stage, since the three–loop perturbative coefficients of the functions $`G`$ and $`\gamma _K`$ are not known at present, one may rely on the fact that the present method and results can be systematically improved upon when higher order perturbative calculations become available.

## 6 Outlook

I have shown that, in the case of the resummed quark form factor, dimensional continuation provides a gauge– and RG–invariant regularization of the Landau singularity. A generalization of the present formalism to more complicated QCD amplitudes and cross sections, and in particular to the resummation of real soft gluon emission, would be of great theoretical and phenomenological interest, since it would in principle lead towards the construction of resummed, RG–invariant partonic cross section, and might provide useful insights in the nature of nonperturbative corrections to factorization theorems. With this in mind, it is encouraging to note that the form factor plays a key role also in the resummation of real gluon emission , and that “Sudakov” resummation techniques are available also for more complicated QCD processes, involving nonsiglet color exchanges .


text:
# Universality or Non–Universality of Absorption Cross Sections for Extended Objects

## Abstract

The calculation of absorption cross sections for minimal scalars in supergravity backgrounds is an important aspect of the investigation of AdS/CFT correspondence and requires a matching of appropriate wave functions. The low energy case has attracted particular attention. In the following the dependence of the cross section on the matching point is investigated. It is shown that the low energy limit is independent of the matching point and hence exhibits universality. In the high energy limit the independence is not maintained, but the result is believed to possess the correct energy dependence.

PACS Numbers:04.70.Dy, 04.62.+v, 11.25.-w

After the entropy problem was solved within the framework of string theory by identifying extremal black holes with BPS states, recent interest seems to be shifted to the Hawking radiation problem. In this context the absorption cross section of extended objects has been computed in the framework of various models requiring matching of wave functions, and the result always coincides with the area of the horizon up to a constant in the low energy limit. This universality While the conventional meaning of universality indicates that the low energy cross section coincides with the area of the horizon, we will use this terminology when the low energy cross section exhibits a common behavior. is examined in general for a spherically symmetric and asymptotically flat geometry, and is in addition generalized by computing the frequency–dependent leading order.

In this letter we argue that this universality property at low energy is related to the insensitivity of extended objects to the matching equations between the asymptotic solution $`\varphi _\omega ^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the near-horizon solution $`\varphi _\omega ^{near}`$. Although this universal property disappears in the high enery limit, it will be shown that even in this case one can obtain the important information, i.e. the explicit energy-dependence of the absorption rate. Also, it is briefly shown that the universality property is maintained for the massive scalar case also.

We consider a massless scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ minimally coupled to a spherically symmetric geometry

$$ds^2=\gamma _{\mu \nu }(r)dx^\mu dx^\nu +f(r)dr^2+r^2h(r)d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}$$
(1)
where $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }(r)(\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{},p)`$ is the metric on a $`(p+1)`$–dimensional world volume of the extended objects. The geometry is assumed to be asymptotically flat: $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }(r)\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, $`f(r),g(r)1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$. Introducing a tortoise coordinate $`r^{}`$ defined by $`dr^{}dr\sqrt{\gamma ^{tt}(r)f(r)}`$, and considering only $`s`$-waves, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{i\omega t}\varphi _\omega (r)`$, one can derive a differential equation similar to the Schrödinger equation

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+V\right]\psi =\omega ^2\psi $$
(2)
where

$`\varphi _\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{U}}}\psi ,`$ (3)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\gamma \gamma ^{tt}\left[r^2h(r)\right]^{n+1}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (4)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{U}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sqrt{U}}{dr^2}}\stackrel{r^{}\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{n^21}{4r^2}}.`$ (5)
Here, $`\gamma det\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$. The solution at $`r\mathrm{}`$ is easily obtained in terms of Bessel functions,

$$\varphi _\omega ^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{(\omega r)^{n/2}}\left[AJ_{\frac{n}{2}}(\omega r)+BJ_{\frac{n}{2}}(\omega r)\right]$$
(6)
for odd $`n`$. Of course, for even $`n`$ the Bessel function with negative order has to be replaced by the Neumann function. Since the final forms of the absorption cross section are always equivalent, we will consider only the $`n=odd`$ case. Using the asymptotic formula of the Bessel function it is straightforward to derive incoming and outgoing fluxes;

$`_{\mathrm{}}^{in}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \omega ^n}}\left[A^2+B^2+AB^{}e^{i\frac{n}{2}\pi }+A^{}Be^{i\frac{n}{2}\pi }\right]`$ (7)
$`_{\mathrm{}}^{out}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \omega ^n}}\left[A^2+B^2+A^{}Be^{i\frac{n}{2}\pi }+AB^{}e^{i\frac{n}{2}\pi }\right].`$ (8)
In order to obtain the near–horizon solution we introduce several parameters as in Ref.:

$`\underset{r0}{lim}U(r)`$ $``$ $`Sr^{ab}`$ (9)
$`\underset{r0}{lim}\sqrt{\gamma ^{tt}(r)f(r)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{r^{b+1}}}`$ (10)
and we confine ourselves to the case of $`0<ba`$. Then, it is straightforward to derive a near–horizon solution in terms of a Hankel function,

$$\varphi _\omega ^{near}\frac{1}{(\omega r)^{\frac{a}{2}}}H_{\frac{a}{2b}}^{(2)}\left(\frac{\omega T}{br^b}\right)$$
(11)
and the incoming flux is

$$^{near}=\frac{4bS}{\pi \omega ^aT}.$$
(12)
In deriving Eq.(11) we used the boundary condition that, as $`r`$ approaches zero, the field contains only incoming waves. Since the absorption cross section per unit volume is defined as

$$\sigma =\frac{(2\pi )^{n+1}}{\omega ^{n+1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}}\frac{^{near}}{_{\mathrm{}}^{in}}$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}=2\pi ^{1+\frac{n}{2}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{n}{2})`$, it is completely determined by determining the coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$ through a matching equation. As claimed above we will show that the absorption cross section in the low energy limit is very insensitive to the choice of matching equation, which results in the universality of the low–energy absorption cross section.

To show this we assume there is a matching point in the finite region, say at $`r=R`$ and use the usual quantum mechanical matching method, i.e. continuity of the wave function and its derivative;

$`\varphi _\omega ^{\mathrm{}}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _\omega ^{near}(R)`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dR}}\varphi _\omega ^{\mathrm{}}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dR}}\varphi _\omega ^{near}(R).`$ (15)
Then it is straightforward to obtain $`A`$ and $`B`$:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\frac{n1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R(\omega R)^{\frac{na}{2}}}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{na}{2R}}J_{\frac{n}{2}}(\omega R)H_{\frac{a}{2b}}^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega T}{bR^b}}\right)\omega J_{\frac{n}{2}}^{}(\omega R)H_{\frac{a}{2b}}^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega T}{bR^b}}\right)`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega T}{R^{b+1}}}J_{\frac{n}{2}}(\omega R)H_{\frac{a}{2b}}^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega T}{bR^b}}\right)]`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\frac{n+1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R(\omega R)^{\frac{na}{2}}}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{na}{2R}}J_{\frac{n}{2}}(\omega R)H_{\frac{a}{2b}}^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega T}{bR^b}}\right)\omega J_{\frac{n}{2}}^{}(\omega R)H_{\frac{a}{2b}}^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega T}{bR^b}}\right)`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega T}{R^{b+1}}}J_{\frac{n}{2}}(\omega R)H_{\frac{a}{2b}}^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega T}{bR^b}}\right)]`$
where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to the argument. Using Eq.(17) one can plot the cross section for different values of $`R`$ as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 demonstrates the important fact that the low energy cross section is independent of the choice of the matching point $`R`$, which is the origin of the idea of universality.

To show this more explicitly we compute the coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$ in the low energy limit by using the asymptotic formulas of Bessel and Hankel functions:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\frac{n1}{2}}in\omega ^{\frac{a}{2}}2^{\frac{n}{2}1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2b}{\omega T}}\right)^{\frac{a}{2b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{a}{2b}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{n}{2}\right)}}`$ (20)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (21)
at the leading order. One should note that the $`R`$-dependence disappears in $`A`$ and $`B`$. Computing the low energy cross section using Eq.(20), one can obtain straightforwardly

$$\sigma _L=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(\frac{a}{2b}\right)}S\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}\left(\frac{\omega T}{2b}\right)^{\frac{a}{b}1}$$
(22)
which coincides with the result of Ref.. Of course, when $`a=b`$, $`\sigma _L`$ becomes $`S\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}`$ which is an area of horizon.

One may argue that this $`R`$-dependence of $`\sigma _L`$ is a special property of the matching equation (14). To disprove this one may choose other matching equations such as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{out}}{_{\mathrm{}}^{in}}}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^{near}}{_{\mathrm{}}^{in}}}=1`$ (23)
$`\varphi _\omega ^{\mathrm{}}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _\omega ^{near}(R).`$ (24)
However, after tedious calculation one can show that this matching equation also leads to Eq. (22) in the low energy limit. We think this insensitivity of extended objects to the choice of matching equations and matching points results in the universality of this limit.

However, the situation is completely different in the high energy limit. Taking the high energy limit,i.e. $`\omega \mathrm{}`$, in Eq. (17), one can obtain

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\frac{n1}{2}}(\omega R)^{\frac{na+1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{bR^b}{\omega T}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{i\left[\frac{\omega T}{bR^b}\frac{\pi }{4}\left(1+\frac{a}{b}\right)\right]}`$ (26)
$`\times \left[\mathrm{sin}\left(\omega R+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{4}}\pi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{iT}{R^{b+1}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega R+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{4}}\pi \right)\right]`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\frac{n+1}{2}}(\omega R)^{\frac{na+1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{bR^b}{\omega T}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{i\left[\frac{\omega T}{bR^b}\frac{\pi }{4}\left(1+\frac{a}{b}\right)\right]}`$ (28)
$`\times \left[\mathrm{sin}\left(\omega R{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{4}}\pi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{iT}{R^{b+1}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega R{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{4}}\pi \right)\right],`$
which yields the absorption cross section $`\sigma _H`$ in the high energy limit to be

$$\sigma _H=\frac{(2\pi /\omega )^{n+1}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}R^{na}}\frac{4S/T}{\left[\sqrt{\frac{R^{b+1}}{T}}\sqrt{\frac{T}{R^{b+1}}}\right]^2}.$$
(29)
The appearance of $`R`$ in Eq. (29) indicates the high energy cross section loses the universality property. However, the $`\omega `$-dependence of $`\sigma _H`$, i.e. $`\sigma _H\omega ^{(n+1)}`$, exhibits a decreasing behavior. This decreasing behavior in the high energy limit is also found numerically in Ref.. This can be an important property as we learned from blackbody radiation. One may question the credibility of this $`\omega `$-dependence in view of the $`R`$-dependence of $`\sigma _H`$. In fact, this is our belief, and the rigorous proof is still an open problem. However, one can achieve some more credibility by considering more complicated situations such as a fixed scalar whose low energy cross section does not exhibit a universality. The authors of Ref. compute the low energy absorption cross section by matching $`\varphi _\omega ^{near}`$ and $`\varphi _\omega ^{\mathrm{}}`$ through the solution in the intermediate region as Unruh did in his seminal paper and obtained $`\sigma _s=2\pi \omega ^2`$ for the $`s`$-wave. If one applies our matching method to this problem, $`\sigma =2\pi \omega ^2R^2/(R1)^2`$ is obtained. Although the explicit dependence on $`R`$ in $`\sigma `$ indicates the non-universality in this case, apart from this $`R`$-dependent factor the cross section exhibits the correct $`\omega `$-dependence. This is the reason why we can have confidence in the $`\omega `$-dependence of $`\sigma _H`$ in Eq. (29).

Finally, we comment on the absorption cross section for the case of a massive scalar. It is interesting to know whether the universal property of the low energy cross section is still maintained or not. In this case the potential in Eq. (3) is changed to

$$V=\frac{1}{\sqrt{U}}\frac{d^2\sqrt{U}}{dr^2}\frac{m^2}{\gamma ^{tt}}$$
(30)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the scalar field. The asymptotic solution in this case is the same as that of Eq. (6) if $`\omega r`$ is replaced by $`\omega vr`$ where $`v=\sqrt{1m^2/\omega ^2}`$.

If we assume $`lim_{r0}\gamma ^{tt}(r)W/r^{2c}`$ where $`W`$ and $`c`$ are some constants, the potential of Eq. (2) in the $`r0`$ region becomes of the form

$$V=V_1(r)+V_2(r)$$
(31)
where

$`V_1(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2b^2}{4T^2}}r^{2b}`$ (32)
$`V_2(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{W}}r^{2c}.`$ (33)
We consider only the $`b<c`$ case for simplicity. The full description of the massive scalar case will be discussed elsewhere. Then we can take $`VV_1`$ approximately, and hence the near-horizon solution is unchanged. This means the mass effect is decoupled in this case in the $`r0`$ region.

By applying our method it is straightforward to obtain the low energy cross section $`\sigma _L^m=v^n\sigma _L`$. Of course, $`\sigma _L^m`$ becomes $`v^n`$ times the area of the horizon when $`a=b`$. Also, in the high energy limit we can obtain the same cross section as that of Eq. (29) if $`R^{b+1}`$ in the square root is replaced by $`vR^{b+1}`$.

In conclusion we make the following remarks. The explicit and exact calculation of S–matrices for specific potentials is generally only possible in some special cases and requires a detailed study of the solutions of the appropriate wave equation in adjoining domains of validity over the entire range of the variable. This old problem which in the past was studied in $`1+3`$ dimensions has received fresh impetus from the string theory interest in absorption cross sections and also for other and higher dimensions. In the special case of the $`D3`$ brane the absorption cross section can be calculated explicitly in terms of modified Mathieu functions in both the low and the high energy domains. The matching of different branches of the solutions in domains of overlap can be done but is nontrivial. It is natural, therefore, particularly if one is interested, for instance, only in the low energy case, to devise simpler methods for the derivation. The method of using Bessel and Hankel functions is such a method, and has been employed particularly frequently in this context for asymptotically flat metrics. However, since the matching point can be chosen arbitrarily, one wants to be ascertained that the result does not depend on its choice. In the above we demonstrated for a wide class of metrics the universality of the low energy result, i.e. its independence of the matching point. Applying the method to the high energy domain we see that there this universality does not ensue, although the energy dependence is expected to be correct. In a further extension, the method has also been applied above to massive scalars. Our findings are therefore particularly reensuring for the application of the simple Bessel function method to the low energy case. In view of the possible wide applicability of the method, the demonstration of universality is also of general interest.

Acknowledgement: D.K. P. acknowledges support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

Figure Caption:

Fig. 1

The absorption cross section for $`n=1,b=T=s=1`$ and $`a=1`$ and $`2`$ for $`R=1,2,3,4`$.