format: text

text:
# Sfermion Pair Production in Polarized and Unpolarized 𝛾𝛾 Collisions

## I Introduction

hep-ph/0008081
DESY 00-112

Among the possible extensions of the Standard Model (SM), supersymmetric (SUSY) theories have a variety of attractive features: They can solve the Higgs hierarchy puzzle, break electroweak symmetry radiatively at low energies, and explain the unification of gauge couplings at a high energy scale. A necessary condition for these arguments to be valid is that SUSY is realized in the region of the electroweak scale. This makes the search for supersymmetry one of the most important tasks at future high-energy collider experiments.

If SUSY is realized at the electroweak scale, most of the SUSY partners of the SM particles will be discovered at the high center-of-mass energies available at the next generation of hadron colliders, i.e. at Run II of the Fermilab Tevatron or at the CERN LHC. After this discovery stage it will be important to analyze the properties of these sparticles and to check whether they have the correct quantum numbers to be partners of the SM particles.

While hadron colliders have the advantage of large available center-of-mass energy, they also have serious disadvantages: First they produce enormous backgrounds from SM processes making it difficult to distinguish the signal from the background. Second, the remnants of the initial hadrons make it impossible to reconstruct the full final state. Third, the energies of the partons initiating the hard scattering are unknown so that an energy (mass) scan becomes impossible.

In $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, the full center-of-mass energy participates in the hard scattering and is precisely known, and the final state consists of a small number of high-energetic particles. The precision studies following upon the SUSY discovery stage are therefore the natural domain of high-energy lepton colliders. Important information on the SUSY parameters can be gained from the SUSY mass spectrum: It will be important to know whether all sfermions, squarks and sleptons, or those of the same generation have identical mass parameters and/or gauge couplings or how large the differences and ratios among them are, or how much the left- and right-handed squarks or sleptons are mixed .

Currently several linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders in the 500-3000 GeV center-of-mass energy range are under design in various international collaborations. From previous experience with existing lepton colliders like LEP2 it is well-known that photons will be ubiquitous at future lepton colliders due to bremsstrahlung and beamstrahlung effects. Furthermore it has been proposed to backscatter laser photons from the lepton beams in order to build a collider with high-energetic and almost monochromatic photon beams . Photon colliders have similar advantages as lepton colliders: In energy scans the initial photon energy is known, although only to $`\pm 15\%`$, and the final state can be completely reconstructed.

Sfermion production in photon collisions has been considered previously either with bremsstrahlung photons  or with laser photons, where the center-of-mass energy dependence for fixed sfermion mass was analyzed in  and the sfermion mass dependence for a fixed collider energy of 1 TeV in . The production of bound squarkonium states was considered in  for bremsstrahlung photons and in  for photon colliders.

In this paper we present the first complete analysis of sfermion production in photon-photon collisions from bremsstrahlung, beamstrahlung, and laser backscattering, including resolved photon processes and polarization effects. We compare the total cross sections directly to those in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and also present differential cross sections. A FORTRAN program to generate total or differential cross sections for any sfermion type in polarized or unpolarized photon-photon collisions or in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is available from the authors upon request.

In Sec. II we review for completeness the unpolarized photon spectra coming from bremsstrahlung, beamstrahlung, and laser backscattering and update them using the latest linear collider design parameters. In Sec. III we present our analytical and numerical results for sfermion production in unpolarized photon-photon collisions and compare them to those in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. Sec. IV contains a discussion of polarized photon spectra. In Sec. V we calculate analytically and numerically total and differential cross sections for sfermion production in polarized photon-photon collisions. Our conclusions are given in Sec. VI.

## II Unpolarized Photon Spectra

High energy electron-positron colliders are abundant sources of photons due to the presence of three photon production mechanisms: bremsstrahlung, beamstrahlung, and laser backscattering. While the first two radiation processes occur at any circular or linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, albeit at different levels, laser backscattering requires additional laser beams and focusing mirrors, which may also interfere with the design of the detectors. These modifications still pose technical difficulties, and they will also increase the cost of such a “photon collider”.

Bremsstrahlung can be conveniently described through an approximation of the complete two-photon process $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}X`$. The outgoing photon spectrum is given by the Weizsäcker-Williams formula

$$f_{\gamma /e}^{\mathrm{brems}}(x)=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left[\frac{1+(1x)^2}{x}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q_{\mathrm{max}}^2(1x)}{m_e^2x^2}+2m_e^2x\left(\frac{1}{Q_{\mathrm{max}}^2}\frac{1x}{m_e^2x^2}\right)\right].$$
(1)
It has been integrated over the photon virtuality up to an upper bound $`Q_{\mathrm{max}}^2=4E_e^2(1x)`$ for untagged outgoing electrons, which depends on the electron (positron) beam energy $`E_e=\sqrt{S}/2`$. This leads to a logarithmic dependence of the spectrum on $`S`$, the squared center-of-mass energy of the collider. $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi )=\sqrt{2}G_Fm_W^2s_W^2/\pi `$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant in the $`G_F`$ scheme, where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $`s_W=\sqrt{1(m_W/m_Z)^2}`$ is the sine of the electroweak mixing angle, and $`m_Z=91.187`$ GeV and $`m_W=80.41`$ GeV are the masses of the electroweak gauge bosons. $`m_e`$ is the electron mass, and $`x`$ is the fractional energy of the photon in the electron.

At existing electron-positron or electron-proton colliders like LEP2 and HERA, bremsstrahlung is the only relevant source of photons. Future circular electron-positron colliders above $`\sqrt{S}=500`$ GeV would suffer from very high synchrotron radiation. They must therefore have a linear design with large luminosities and dense particle bunches. Inside the opposite bunch, electrons and positrons experience transverse acceleration and radiate beamstrahlung. The corresponding spectrum

$$f_{\gamma /e}^{\mathrm{beam}}(x)=\frac{5}{4\sqrt{3}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_u^{\mathrm{}}dv\mathrm{Ai}(v)\left[\left(\frac{2v}{u}1\right)\frac{1+(1x)^2}{2(1x)}+\frac{x^2}{2(1x)}\right],$$
(2)
where the Airy-function Ai$`(v)`$ falls off exponentially at large $`v`$ and $`u=\{5x/[4\sqrt{3}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1x)]\}^{2/3}`$, is controlled by the beamstrahlung parameter

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\frac{5r_e^2E_eN}{6\alpha \sigma _z(\sigma _x+\sigma _y)m_e}.$$
(3)
This parameter is proportional to the effective electromagnetic field of the bunches and depends on the classical electron radius $`r_e=\alpha /m_e=2.81810^{15}`$ m, on the r.m.s. sizes of the Gaussian beam $`\sigma _x,\sigma _y,\sigma _z`$, and on the total number of particles in a bunch $`N`$. Current design parameters for future linear colliders are listed in Tab. I.

For not too large $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}5`$ the spectrum for multiple photon emission can be written in the approximate form

$`f_{\gamma /e}^{\mathrm{beam}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}x^{\frac{2}{3}}(1x)^{\frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{3\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1x)}}\right]`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{24}}}{g(x)}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g(x)N_\gamma }}\left(1e^{g(x)N_\gamma }\right)\right]+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{24}}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_\gamma }}\left(1e^{N_\gamma }\right)\right]\right\},`$ (5)
where

$$g(x)=1\frac{1}{2}\left[(1+x)\sqrt{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{\frac{2}{3}}}+1x\right](1x)^{\frac{2}{3}}$$
(6)
and the average number of photons radiated per electron throughout the collision is

$$N_\gamma =\frac{5\alpha ^2\sigma _zm_e}{2r_eE_e}\frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{\frac{2}{3}}}}.$$
(7)
Since $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\sqrt{S}`$, the exponential suppression of beamstrahlung decreases with rising $`\sqrt{S}`$ and from up to down in Tab. I. Beamstrahlung is most important for the CLIC design and less important for the NLC, JLC, or TESLA designs.

The photon spectra for the $`\sqrt{S}=1`$ TeV $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders listed in Tab. I are shown in Fig. 1, where we have used the beamstrahlung spectrum of Eq. (4). It is obvious that the bremsstrahlung and beamstrahlung mechanisms produce mostly soft photons. However, it is interesting to note that beamstrahlung at a 3 TeV CLIC collider  produces already three times more high-energetic photons (at $`x=0.8`$) than bremsstrahlung alone.

The situation is much better if laser photons are backscattered off the incident lepton beams. The laser backscattering spectrum

$$f_{\gamma /e}^{\mathrm{laser}}(x)=\frac{1}{N_c}\left[1x+\frac{1}{1x}\frac{4x}{X(1x)}+\frac{4x^2}{X^2(1x)^2}\right],$$
(8)
where

$$N_c=\left[1\frac{4}{X}\frac{8}{X^2}\right]\mathrm{ln}(1+X)+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{8}{X}\frac{1}{2(1+X)^2}$$
(9)
is related to the total Compton cross section, depends on the center-of-mass energy of the electron-laser photon collision $`X=4E_eE_\gamma /m_e^2`$. The optimal value of $`X`$ is determined by the threshold for the process $`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$ and is $`X=2+\sqrt{8}4.83`$ . If this value is kept fixed, the laser backscattering spectrum becomes independent of $`\sqrt{S}`$. A large fraction of the photons is then produced close to the kinematic limit $`x<x_{\mathrm{max}}=X/(1+X)0.828`$, so that one obtains an almost monochromatic “photon collider”.

## III Unpolarized Cross Sections

The inclusive cross section for photoproduction of sfermions in electron-positron collisions

$$\sigma _{e^+e^{}}^B(S)=dx_1f_{i/e}(x_1)dx_2f_{j/e}(x_2)dt_{\stackrel{~}{f}}du_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\sigma _{ij}^B(s)}{\mathrm{d}t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\mathrm{d}u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}}$$
(10)
can be obtained by convolving the hard photonic cross section

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\sigma _{ij}^B(s)}{\mathrm{d}t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\mathrm{d}u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}}=\frac{\pi (4\pi )^{2+\epsilon }}{s^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon )}\left[\frac{t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s}{\mu ^2s}\right]^\epsilon \mathrm{\Theta }(t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s)\mathrm{\Theta }(s4m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2)\delta (s+t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}+u_{\stackrel{~}{f}})\overline{|_{ij}^B|}^2$$
(11)
with the photon energy spectra $`f_{\gamma /e}(x)`$ discussed in the previous Section. We denote the momenta of the massless incoming photons by $`k_{1,2}`$ and those of the outgoing sfermions with mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ by $`p_{1,2}`$. $`s=(k_1+k_2)^2=x_1x_2S,t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}=(k_2p_2)^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2,`$ and $`u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}=(k_1p_2)^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2`$ are the Mandelstam variables of the hard photon-photon scattering process. $`\overline{|_{ij}^B|}^2`$ is the partonic matrix element squared, summed (averaged) over final (initial) state spins and calculated in $`d=42\epsilon `$ dimensions. $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary scale parameter. In addition to the direct contributions with $`i,j=\gamma `$, one or two of the photons can also resolve into a hadronic structure before they interact. For these single- and double-resolved contributions, the photon spectra $`f_{\gamma /e}(x)`$ have to be convolved with the parton density functions $`f_{i,j/\gamma }(y)`$ of quarks or gluons in the photons

$$f_{i,j/e}(x)=_x^1\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{y}f_{\gamma /e}\left(\frac{x}{y}\right)f_{i,j/\gamma }(y).$$
(12)
The parton densities in the photon can not be calculated in perturbation theory but have to be fitted to experimental data, e.g. on the photon structure function $`F_2^\gamma (x)`$ or on jet photoproduction.

In contrast, the partonic matrix elements can be calculated in perturbation theory. Direct sfermion production in leading order proceeds through the three diagrams shown in Fig. 2. The corresponding matrix element is given by

$$\overline{|_{\gamma \gamma }^B|}^2=\frac{4e^4e_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^4N_C\left[\left(1\epsilon \right)t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^22m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}s+2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^4s^2\right]}{(1\epsilon )^2t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2}.$$
(13)
Here, summing over left- and right-handed squarks and sleptons has led to an additional factor of 2, but we do not sum over different sfermion generations. The color factor $`N_C=3`$ for squarks, and $`N_C=1`$ for sleptons. Due to the large mass of the top quark, the supersymmetric partners of the left- and right-handed top, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{L,R}`$, can mix to $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{1,2}`$ as can those of the bottom quark. It is important to note that the direct photon-photon cross section is proportional to the fourth power of the sfermion charge $`ee_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ $`(e_{\stackrel{~}{u}}=2/3,e_{\stackrel{~}{d}}=1/3,e_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=1)`$. The cross section is independent of the details of the SUSY breaking mechanism, since it depends only on the physical sfermion masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$.

This is in contrast to electron-positron annihilation, where the squared matrix element

$`\overline{|_{e^+e^{}}^B|}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta _{ij}e^4e_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2N_C\left(t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s\right)}{s^2}}`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_{ij}^2e^4N_C\left(14s_W^2+8s_W^4\right)\left(t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s\right)}{64s_W^4c_W^4\left(s^2+m_Z^4+m_Z^2\left(2s+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2\right)\right)}}`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_{ij}\delta _{ij}e^4e_{\stackrel{~}{f}}N_C\left(sm_Z^2\right)\left(14s_W^2\right)\left(t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2s\right)}{4s_W^2c_W^2s\left(s^2+m_Z^4+m_Z^2\left(2s+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2\right)\right)}}`$ (16)
depends on the details of the SUSY breaking mechanism through the sfermion mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ in the $`Z^0\stackrel{~}{f}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j`$ coupling $`e/(4s_Wc_W)a_{ij}`$ with

$$a_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}4(I_f^{3L}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}e_{\stackrel{~}{f}}s_W^2)& 2I_f^{3L}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}\\ 2I_f^{3L}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}& 4(I_f^{3L}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}e_{\stackrel{~}{f}}s_W^2)\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
and it is possible to produce off-diagonal sfermion mass eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j`$. In this paper we restrict ourselves to the case of no squark mixing. $`s_W(c_W)`$ is the sine (cosine) of the electroweak mixing angle $`\theta _W`$ and $`I_f^{3L}=1/2(1/2)`$ for up-type (down-type) fermions $`f`$. The first term in Eq. (14) corresponds to the exchange of a photon in the $`s`$-channel, the second one to the exchange of a $`Z^0`$ boson, and the third one to the interference between the two. The cross section for the production of sfermions in electron-positron annihilation

$$\sigma _{e^+e^{}}^B(S)=dt_{\stackrel{~}{f}}du_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\sigma _{e^+e^{}}^B(S)}{\mathrm{d}t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\mathrm{d}u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}}$$
(18)
does of course not depend on photon spectra or parton densities.

In Fig. 3 we show the total cross section for up-type squark production in photon-photon scattering and in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at $`\sqrt{S}=1`$ TeV as a function of the squark mass. Only the annihilation cross section differs for left- and right-handed squarks. It extends out to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}\sqrt{S}/2`$. With laser backscattering, the mass range is reduced to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}0.8\sqrt{S}/2`$. However, the photoproduction cross section exceeds the annihilation cross section for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}250`$ GeV by up to an order of magnitude, and even above 250 GeV it is of comparable size. While up-type squarks below $`250`$ GeV are already excluded by current Tevatron data, a light stop and sleptons with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}>100`$ GeV are still allowed . These sparticles can therefore better be studied at a photon collider. Note that the photon cross section for

light left- (right-) handed sfermions has to be divided by 2 and compared to the left- (right-) handed annihilation cross section. Slepton cross sections are larger than up-type squark cross sections by a factor $`1/(3e_{\stackrel{~}{u}}^4)=27/16`$, while down-squark cross sections are smaller by a factor $`(e_{\stackrel{~}{d}}/e_{\stackrel{~}{u}})^4=1/16`$. In addition, selectron production in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is enhanced by the $`t`$-channel exchange of a neutralino. In Fig. 3 we also show the cross sections for photons produced with brems- and beamstrahlung without additional laser facilities. We find that the bremsstrahlung cross section is of similar size as $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation only for very light squarks $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}100`$ GeV, which are already excluded experimentally. The bremsstrahlung cross section is always lower than the laser cross section by one to three orders of magnitude. Beamstrahlung, which is most important for the CLIC (99) design, behaves similarly to bremsstrahlung and enhances the bremsstrahlung cross section by a factor of 2.***Our results agree with  for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, but differ for the bremsstrahlung cross sections by approximately a factor of 3.

In Fig. 4 we show the cross sections for the production of up-type squarks of mass 250 GeV as a function of the center-of-mass energy of the collider. The annihilation cross section has a maximum at $`\sqrt{S}3m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$. At the kinematic limit of the collider, sfermions can only be produced through the annihilation process, but the laser backscattering cross section also shows a very steep threshold behavior. At higher energies, the laser backscattering cross section stays constant, while the annihilation cross section falls off like $`1/S`$. At 1 TeV or higher center-of-mass energy a photon collider is therefore favorable. At a very large energy CLIC collider even the brems- and beamstrahlung cross sections become comparable to the annihilation cross section. For the beamstrahlung cross section it is necessary to interpolate between $`\sqrt{S}=500,1000,`$ and 3000 GeV, since the CLIC (99) design parameters are only known for these fixed center-of-mass energies.

For a light stop and sleptons of mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}100`$ GeV a photon collider is already favorable at the threshold of the

sfermion pair production process in photon-photon collisions ($`2\times 100`$ GeV / 0.8 = 250 GeV), and the cross section falls off very slowly at large energies. This can be seen from Fig. 5 where we show total cross sections for the production of up-type squarks of mass 100 GeV. Even the brems- and beamstrahlung cross section for these light sparticles becomes interesting around $`\sqrt{S}=1`$ TeV.

As mentioned at the beginning of this Section, photons can not only produce sfermions by direct coupling, but also after resolving into a hadronic structure. The direct, single, and double-resolved hard scattering matrix elements are formally of $`𝒪(\alpha ^2),𝒪(\alpha \alpha _s)`$, and $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _s`$ are the electromagnetic and strong coupling constants. However, the resolved processes have to be convolved with parton densities in the photon, which are of $`𝒪(\alpha /\alpha _s)`$ at asymptotically large factorization scales $`\mu =m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$. Therefore all three categories end up being of the same order $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$ in the perturbative expansion. In resolved processes, only part of the initial photon energy participates in the hard scattering. Therefore one expects them to be important only at low masses, where not the full center-of-mass energy is needed.

If one of the two photons still couples directly, we obtain the contributions shown in Fig. 6. The matrix element squared for the process $`\gamma g\stackrel{~}{q}\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$

$$\overline{|_{\gamma g}^B|}^2=\frac{e^2e_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2g_s^2C_F\left[\left(1\epsilon \right)t_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2u_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^22m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2t_{\stackrel{~}{q}}u_{\stackrel{~}{q}}s+2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^4s^2\right]}{2(1\epsilon )^2N_CC_Ft_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2u_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}$$
(19)
can be obtained from the direct contribution by the replacements $`e^2e_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2g_s^2`$ and $`N_CC_F/(2N_CC_F)`$, where

$`g_s^2/(4\pi )=\alpha _s(\mu )`$ is the strong coupling constant and $`C_F=(N_C^21)/(2N_C)`$ is the color factor of SU(3). The matrix element squared for the process $`g\gamma \stackrel{~}{q}\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ is identical. Obviously resolved contributions arise only for squarks, since sleptons do not couple strongly. The single-resolved matrix elements have to be convolved with the gluon density in the photon, which constitutes a higher order $`𝒪(\alpha /\alpha _s\times \alpha _s)`$ contribution to the photon structure and is not well constrained from deep-inelastic $`e\gamma `$ scattering. The gluon density is expected to be small at large $`x=2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}/\sqrt{s}`$.

If both photons resolve into a hadronic structure, we obtain the contributions in Fig. 7. The matrix elements squared for the processes $`q_i\overline{q}_j\stackrel{~}{q}\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ and $`gg\stackrel{~}{q}\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ are

$`\overline{|_{q_i\overline{q}_j}^B|}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{4N_C^2}}\left[8g_s^4N_CC_F{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\stackrel{~}{q}}u_{\stackrel{~}{q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2s}{s^2}}+4\widehat{g}_s^4N_CC_F{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\stackrel{~}{q}}u_{\stackrel{~}{q}}(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2)s}{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2)^2}}8g_s^2\widehat{g}_s^2C_F{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\stackrel{~}{q}}u_{\stackrel{~}{q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2s}{s(tm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2)}}\right]`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\delta _{ij}}{4N_C^2}}\left[4\widehat{g}_s^4N_CC_F{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\stackrel{~}{q}}u_{\stackrel{~}{q}}(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2)s}{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2)^2}}\right],`$ (21)
$`\overline{|_{gg}^B|}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4g_s^4}{16(1\epsilon )^2N_C^2C_F^2}}\left[C_O\left(12{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\stackrel{~}{q}}u_{\stackrel{~}{q}}}{s^2}}\right)C_K\right]\left[1\epsilon 2{\displaystyle \frac{sm_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}{t_{\stackrel{~}{q}}u_{\stackrel{~}{q}}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{sm_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}{t_{\stackrel{~}{q}}u_{\stackrel{~}{q}}}}\right)\right],`$ (22)
where $`C_O=N_C(N_C^21)`$ and $`C_K=(N_C^21)/N_C.`$ The $`t`$-channel contribution in $`q_i\overline{q}_j\stackrel{~}{q}\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ depends on the gluino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and does not contribute for $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ production due to the negligible top quark density in the photon. Furthermore, the gluino-exchange $`t`$-channel term $`1\delta _{ij}`$ is the only term through which off-diagonal squarks can be produced. Note that this is impossible in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. The quark-initiated matrix elements have to be convolved with the leading order $`𝒪(\alpha /\alpha _s)`$ quark densities in the photon. These are fairly well constrained from deep-inelastic $`e\gamma `$ scattering and peak at $`x1`$.

If we include all direct, single-resolved, and double-resolved contributions to up-type squark production in photon-photon scattering, we obtain the results shown in Fig. 8. Here we have used the GRV (LO) parton densities in the photon with a leading order value of $`\alpha _s^{\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{f}=5}(\mu =m_{\stackrel{~}{q}})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(4)}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$ . Resolved processes (mostly photon-gluon fusion) contribute substantially only at small squark masses (below 100 GeV), which are experimentally excluded. While the $`q\overline{q}`$ $`t`$-channel varies by an order of magnitude with the gluino mass, this dependence does not show up in the total cross section. We have chosen gluino masses between the current experimental limit of 200 GeV  and 1 TeV, where weak-scale supersymmetry starts to become unnatural. The total cross section is clearly dominated by the direct channel and has very little dependence on resolved contributions or assumptions on the photon structure.

## IV Polarized Photon Spectra

Future lepton colliders are very likely to have a high degree of longitudinal polarization $`|\lambda _e|1/2`$. Part of this polarization will be transferred to the produced photons. The polarization state of the photon is determined by the Stokes parameters $`\xi _i,i=1,2,3`$ , where $`\sqrt{\xi _1^2+\xi _3^2}`$ is the degree of linear polarization and

$`\xi _2=\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\gamma /e}(x)/f_{\gamma /e}(x)`$ $`,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\gamma /e}(x)=f_{\gamma /e}^+(x)f_{\gamma /e}^{}(x)`$ (23)
is the mean helicity. Since $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _3`$ generally depend on the azimuthal angle, we will be mainly concerned with the circular polarization parameter $`\xi _2`$.

The circularly polarized bremsstrahlung spectrum

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\gamma /e}^{\mathrm{brems}}(x)=\frac{2\lambda _e\alpha }{2\pi }\left[\frac{1(1x)^2}{x}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q_{\mathrm{max}}^2(1x)}{m_e^2x^2}+2m_e^2x^2\left(\frac{1}{Q_{\mathrm{max}}^2}\frac{1x}{m_e^2x^2}\right)\right]$$
(24)
has been derived in . As in the unpolarized case a non-logarithmic term is present which is, however, not singular for $`x0`$.

The $`x`$-dependence of the circularly polarized beamstrahlung spectrum

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\gamma /e}^{\mathrm{beam}}(x)=\frac{5\lambda _e}{2\sqrt{3}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_u^{\mathrm{}}dv\mathrm{Ai}(v)\left[\left(\frac{2v}{u}1\right)\frac{1(1x)^2}{2(1x)}+\frac{x^2}{2(1x)}\right]$$
(25)
is very similar, as can be seen in Fig. 9. At $`x1`$ the photons are completely polarized parallel to the incoming electron helicity, but at $`x0`$, where most of the brems- and beamstrahlung photons are produced, they are completely unpolarized. This can be understood from the fact that the electron polarization is lost in the Lorentz transformation from the Breit frame of the electron-photon vertex to the center-of-mass frame of the photon-target vertex. The dependence of $`\xi _2`$ on $`\sqrt{S}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is very weak. As $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}100`$, the beamstrahlung polarization coincides with the bremsstrahlung polarization.

While the photon polarization at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider is thus rather limited, a photon collider offers the additional possibility to control the helicity of the laser photons $`|P_c|1`$. This also affects the unpolarized photon spectrum

$$f_{\gamma /e}^{\mathrm{laser}}(x)=\frac{1}{N_c+2\lambda _eP_cN_c^{}}\left[1x+\frac{1}{1x}\frac{4x}{X(1x)}+\frac{4x^2}{X^2(1x)^2}2\lambda _eP_c\frac{x(2x)[x(X+2)X]}{X(1x)^2}\right],$$
(26)
where

$$N_c^{}=\left[\left(1+\frac{2}{X}\right)\mathrm{ln}(1+X)\frac{5}{2}+\frac{1}{1+X}\frac{1}{2(1+X)^2}\right]$$
(27)
is related to the polarized total Compton cross section. As can be seen in Fig. 10, the monochromaticity of the outgoing photons can be improved considerably by choosing $`2\lambda _eP_c=1`$.

Fig. 11 shows the degree of circular polarization $`\xi _2`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\gamma /e}^{\mathrm{laser}}(x)=\frac{1}{N_c+2\lambda _eP_cN_c^{}}\left\{2\lambda _e\frac{x}{1x}\left[1+(1x)\left(1\frac{2x}{(1x)X}\right)^2\right]+P_c\left(1\frac{2x}{(1x)X}\right)\left(1x+\frac{1}{1x}\right)\right\}$$
(28)
for laser-backscattered photons . If only the electrons are polarized $`(P_c=0)`$, the result coincides again with that for brems- and beamstrahlung. However, if $`P_c=\pm 1`$, then the backscattered photons have helicity $`\xi _2=P_c`$ at $`x=x_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Therefore the choice $`2\lambda _eP_c=1`$ guarantees not only good monochromaticity, but also a high degree of circular polarization of the produced photons. By switching the signs of $`\lambda _e`$ and $`P_c`$ simultaneously, one can switch the helicity $`\xi _2`$ of the outgoing photons without changing the photon spectrum or spoiling its monochromaticity.

## V Polarized Cross Sections

The cross section for sfermion production in polarized photon-photon collisions can again be calculated from Eqs. (10) and (11). However, the unpolarized matrix element squared has to be replaced with

$`\overline{|_{\gamma \gamma }^B|}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4e^4e_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^4N_C}{(1\epsilon )^2t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2}}\{(1\epsilon )t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2[1+\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2^{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3^{(2)}]`$ (30)
$`2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}s[\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2^{(2)}+(1+\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3^{(1)})(1+\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3^{(2)})]+2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^4s^2(1+\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3^{(1)})(1+\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3^{(2)})\},`$
which has been calculated using the covariant density matrix for polarized photons

$$\rho _{\mu \nu }^{(1,2)}=\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu ^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(e_\mu ^xe_\nu ^x+e_\mu ^ye_\nu ^y\right)\pm \frac{\xi _1^{(1,2)}}{2}\left(e_\mu ^xe_\nu ^y+e_\mu ^ye_\nu ^x\right)\frac{\mathrm{i}\xi _2^{(1,2)}}{2}\left(e_\mu ^xe_\nu ^ye_\mu ^ye_\nu ^x\right)+\frac{\xi _3^{(1,2)}}{2}\left(e_\mu ^xe_\nu ^xe_\mu ^ye_\nu ^y\right).$$
(31)
The $`\xi _i^{(1,2)},i=1,2,3`$, are the Stokes parameters discussed in the previous Section. They describe the polarizations $`\epsilon _{\mu ,\nu }^{()}`$ of the photons with momenta $`k_{1,2}=\sqrt{s}/2(1,0,0,\pm 1)`$. $`e^x`$ and $`e^y`$ denote unit vectors in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. The momenta of the outgoing sfermions are given by $`p_{1,2}=(m_T\mathrm{cosh}y,\pm p_T\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\pm p_T\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\pm m_T\mathrm{sinh}y)`$. $`p_T,y`$, and $`\varphi `$ are the transverse momentum, rapidity and azimuthal angle of the produced sfermions, and $`m_T=\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2+p_T^2}`$ is the transverse sfermion mass. The azimuthal dependence of the cross section has been included in the rotated Stokes parameters

$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _1^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )\xi _3^{(1)}\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi ),`$ (32)
$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _2^{(1)},`$ (33)
$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _1^{(1)}\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )+\xi _3^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi ),`$ (34)
$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _1^{(2)}\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )+\xi _3^{(2)}\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi ),`$ (35)
$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _2^{(2)},`$ (36)
$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _1^{(2)}\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )+\xi _3^{(2)}\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi ).`$ (37)
For sfermion production in polarized photon-photon collisions we consider only direct processes. Our analysis of the unpolarized cross section has clearly demonstrated that resolved processes are only important at very small, experimentally excluded, squark masses. Furthermore, almost nothing is known experimentally about polarized parton densities in the photon. Predictions for polarized resolved photoproduction would thus be very speculative.

Because of the azimuthal dependence, cross sections with linear photon polarization are difficult to disentangle and remain small if averaged over the azimuthal angle. Therefore we restrict ourselves to circularly polarized photons and set $`\xi _1=\xi _3=0`$. Since $`\overline{|_{\gamma \gamma }^B|}^2`$ depends then only the product $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2^{(2)}`$, we expect identical cross sections for incoming photons with identical or opposite helicities.

In Fig. 12 we compare the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation cross section against the polarized photon-photon cross section for up-type squark production at a 1 TeV photon collider for different squark masses. The labels $`++,,+`$, and $`+`$ denote the helicities $`P_c`$ of the incoming laser photons. The helicities of the incoming leptons $`\lambda _e`$ have always been chosen to ensure the condition for optimal monochromaticity, $`2\lambda _eP_c=1`$. The backscattered photons are therefore highly polarized in the direction opposite to the laser photon (see Fig. 11). The unpolarized curve is the same as in Fig. 3, i.e. $`\lambda _e=P_c=0`$.

Fig. 12 demonstrates that the unpolarized photon-photon cross section can be enhanced in the region $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}[100;250]`$ GeV by about 40% if one chooses opposite laser photon helicities ($`+`$ or $`+`$). For $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}>250`$ GeV the effect is even more dramatic: The cross section can be improved by almost an order of magnitude at large $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ if one chooses identical laser photon helicities. The cross section at a polarized photon collider stays larger than the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation cross section almost up to the kinematic limit of the photon collider. It is interesting to note that one has to switch from opposite to identical helicities at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}250`$ GeV, where the unpolarized photon-photon cross section drops below the annihilation cross section. In Fig. 12 we also show polarization effects for sfermions produced via brems- and beamstrahlung. The cross sections remain small and are only slightly enhanced by preferring identical over opposite lepton helicities.

In Fig. 13 we compare the same cross sections for a fixed up-type squark mass of 250 GeV as a function of the center-of-mass energy of the collider $`\sqrt{S}`$. The unpolarized photon cross section can again be enhanced by an appropriate choice of polarization. In particular, identical laser photon helicities lead to a photon cross section which is larger than the annihilation cross section already at the threshold of the photon collider, i.e. below 1 TeV, while the cross section for opposite helicities is smaller by a factor $`\beta ^4=(14m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2/s)^2`$. Polarization for brems- and beamstrahlung is

again of little interest. At large $`\sqrt{S}`$, where the cross sections become large, the radiated photons are completely unpolarized.

For up-type squarks of mass 100 GeV we show the center-of-mass energy dependence in Fig. 14. Again the cross section at threshold can be optimized by choosing identical photon helicities.

For experimental analyses it is also important to study differential cross sections, e.g. in the transverse momentum $`p_T`$ or the rapidity $`y`$ of the produced supersymmetric particles,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{e^+e^{}}^B(S)}{\mathrm{d}p_T\mathrm{d}y}=2p_TSdx_1x_1f_{i/e}(x_1)dx_2x_2f_{j/e}(x_2)\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\sigma _{ij}^B(s)}{\mathrm{d}t_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\mathrm{d}u_{\stackrel{~}{f}}},$$
(38)
since cuts on $`p_T`$ and $`y`$ can help to eliminate backgrounds. For this reason we show in Fig. 15 differential $`p_T`$ spectra for up-type squarks of mass 250 GeV, produced at a 1 TeV photon collider. The spectra have been integrated over the rapidity $`y`$ and extend out to the kinematic limit $`p_T<0.828\sqrt{S}2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}=328`$ GeV. While the unpolarized spectrum peaks at $`p_T100`$ GeV, or roughly at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}/2`$, the mean $`p_T`$ of sfermions produced with backscattered laser photons of identical helicity is almost twice as big. If the laser photons have opposite helicity, one gets a distinct twin-peak behavior with a local minimum. This is due to the absence of the four-point interaction diagram in Fig. 2 which contributes only for identical helicities at intermediate $`p_T`$. These features should be very helpful in experimental analyses. Similar results for up-type squarks of mass 100 GeV are shown in Fig. 16.

Finally we show in Fig. 17 rapidity distributions for up-type squarks of mass 100 GeV produced at a 1 TeV photon collider. The rapidity spectra are symmetric at $`y=0`$ and extend out to $`|y|<2`$. This range should be covered by the detector at a photon collider to provide optimal analyzing conditions for sfermions of mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}=100`$ GeV. For $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}=250`$ GeV the rapidity spectrum is narrower and extends out to $`|y|<1.1`$ (see Fig. 18). The spectrum for laser photons with identical helicities is again very similar to the unpolarized spectrum. The spectrum for opposite helicities has interesting shoulders at $`y=\pm 1.5`$ in the case of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}=100`$ GeV. The dips at $`y=\pm 1`$ are again due to the absence of the four-point interaction diagram in Fig. 2 for opposite helicities.

## VI Conclusion

In this paper we have presented a detailed analysis of sfermion production in photon-photon collisions. We have reviewed the unpolarized and polarized photon spectra coming from bremsstrahlung, beamstrahlung, and laser backscattering and updated them using the latest linear collider design parameters. We have calculated for the first time total and differential cross sections for sfermion production in photon-photon collisions, including contributions from resolved photons and arbitrary photon polarization. Our numerical results have been compared directly to the competing $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation cross section. We have chosen to present our results for the typical case of up-type squark production. The cross sections for down-type squarks and sleptons can easily be obtained by rescaling our results according to the sfermion charge and color factor.

Brems- and beamstrahlung photons will be produced naturally at any linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. Our results show that the corresponding production cross sections are small, except at the very large center-of-mass energies envisaged in the CLIC design. The polarization of the initial photons remains small even if the initial lepton polarization is large. Therefore polarization effects in brems- and beamstrahlung are of little interest.

A dedicated photon collider will require the construction of additional laser facilities at some extra cost. However, we have demonstrated that a photon collider may be advantageous for the analysis of sfermions for several reasons:

* In leading order of perturbation theory, photon-photon collisions are pure SUSY-QED processes, which depend only on the physical sfermion mass and not on the details of the SUSY breaking mechanism. Any model dependence can therefore be analyzed cleanly in the decay of the sfermions.
* The photon cross section is very sensitive to the sfermion charge so that sleptons, up-type, and down-type squarks can be clearly distinguished.
* A photon collider can produce almost monochromatic photons, i.e. photons which have about 83 % of the electron beam energy, and they can be highly polarized. As a consequence we find that the production cross sections are larger than those in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation for a large range of sfermion masses. If the incoming laser photons and leptons are polarized and the photons have identical helicities, this is even true up to the kinematic limit of the photon collider. For lower sfermion masses or higher center-of-mass energies the cross section can be improved by about 40 % by choosing opposite laser photon helicities.

Resolved photon processes are only important for squarks, since sleptons do not couple strongly. Furthermore, resolved photons contribute significantly only at very small squark masses, which are experimentally already excluded. While there is thus no enhancement of the production cross section, there is also no uncertainty due to the photon structure or the scale of the strong coupling constant.

Differential cross sections are important for experimental analyses to distinguish signal from background events. We find that the $`p_T`$ spectrum for sfermion production in photon collisions peaks roughly at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}/2`$ as expected. The rapidity spectrum for sfermions of mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}=100`$ GeV at a 1 TeV photon collider extends out to $`\pm 2`$. We conclude that this should be the minimum coverage a detector at a photon collider should have to ensure full analyzing power. The polarized $`p_T`$ and $`y`$ spectra have very distinct features which should be helpful in the experimental analysis.

## Acknowledgments

We thank D. V. Schroeder for mailing us a copy of his Ph. D. thesis and K. Hagiwara, B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, V. Telnov, and A. Tkabladze for valuable comments. This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through Grant No. KL 1266/1-1 and Graduiertenkolleg Zukünftige Entwicklungen in der Teilchenphysik and by the European Commission through Grant No. ERBFMRX-CT98-0194.


text:
# BEAM DYNAMICS SIMULATION FOR THE CTF3 DRIVE-BEAM ACCELERATOR

## 1 Introduction

In the nominal stage of CTF3, the drive-beam accelerator will have eight klystrons, each feeding two 1$`\mathrm{m}`$-long structures. The structures are almost fully loaded, transferring more than $`90\%`$ of their input power to the beam. The average energy gain per structure is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E9.1\mathrm{MeV}`$ . The beam pulse consists of ten short trains of about 210 bunches each. The first train fills odd buckets, the immediately following second train fills even buckets; this pattern is then repeated. An RF-deflector at half the linac frequency is used to separate the trains after acceleration . The initial beam energy is $`E_026\mathrm{MeV}`$, the final beam energy $`E_f170\mathrm{MeV}`$, the bunch charge $`q=2.33\mathrm{nC}`$, its length $`\sigma _x1.5\mathrm{mm}`$  and the transverse normalised emittances are $`ϵ_x^{}=ϵ_y^{}=100\mu \mathrm{m}`$.

## 2 Structure Model

The simulations below have been performed using PLACET . The long-range transverse wakefield is represented by the lowest two dipole modes of each cell. These have been calculated neglecting the coupling between cells and the effect of the damping waveguides . The damping of the lowest dipole mode has been found  to be in the range $`Q=11`$ to $`Q=19`$ for perfect loads. In the simulation, the modes are confined to their cells, which allows one to take into account the angle of the beam trajectory in the structure. The loss factors used in the simulation are $`50\%`$ larger than in . This is to account for the effect of higher-order modes. Also, the damping is conservative in the simulation; $`Q=30`$ and $`Q=400`$ are used for the lowest and the second dipole band. The short-range longitudinal  and transverse  wakefields have been calculated and are included in the simulation. Almost perfect compensation of the long-range longitudinal wakefields is predicted .

Quadrupole wakefields may be important and have been implemented in PLACET. The corresponding modes have not yet been calculated but need to be included in the simulation as soon as they are available.

## 3 Lattices

Three different lattices were investigated. One consists of simple FODO-cells, with one structure between each pair of quadrupoles. The other two lattices are based on triplets. In one case (called T1 below), one structure was placed between two triplets; in the other case two structures (T2). The weaker triplet lattice (T1) and the FODO lattice are roughly comparable in length and cost, whereas the strong triplet lattice (T2) is significantly longer and more costly.

In the FODO lattice, the phase advance is $`\mu =102^{}`$ per cell, with a quadrupole spacing of $`2\mathrm{m}`$. In T2 one has $`\mu _x=97^{}`$ and $`\mu _y=110^{}`$, and a distance of $`4.2\mathrm{m}`$ between triplets. The sum of the integrated strengths of the outer two magnets is slightly larger than that of the inner one. With this arrangement, the horizontal and the vertical beta-functions are equal in the accelerating structures, and the energy acceptance of the lattice is markedly improved. For T1 the phase advances are $`\mu _x=84^{}`$ and $`\mu _y=108^{}`$ for a triplet spacing of $`3\mathrm{m}`$. The transverse acceptance is $`4.2\sigma `$ for the FODO lattice, $`4.9\sigma `$ for T2 and $`5.8\sigma `$ for T1.

Since the beams have to be compressed after the acceleration, the RF-phase cannot be used to optimise the beam transport. It must be chosen to achieve the required compression and to limit the energy spread of the beam before the combiner ring to the latter’s energy acceptance. An RF phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{RF}=6^{}`$ is used in the following.

## 4 Transverse Beam Jitter

No estimate of the transverse jitter of the incoming beam exists. Therefore, only the jitter amplification is calculated. In the simulation, each bunch is cut into slices; the beam is set to an offset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and tracked through the linac. The normalised amplification factor $`A`$ for a slice is defined as

$$A=\frac{\sigma _{x,0}}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}\sqrt{\left(\frac{x_f}{\sigma _{x,f}}\right)^2+\left(\frac{x_f^{}}{\sigma _{x^{},f}}\right)^2}$$

Here, $`\sigma _{x,0}`$ and $`\sigma _{x,f}`$ are initial and final beam size, $`\sigma _{x^{},0}`$ and $`\sigma _{x^{},f}`$ are initial and final beam divergence, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is the initial beam offset and $`x_f`$ and $`x_f^{}`$ are the final position and angle of the centre of the slice. For a slice with nominal energy and without wakefield effects, one has $`A=1`$. The maximum amplification factor $`\widehat{A}`$ is the maximum over all slices. The left-hand side of Fig. 1 shows the bunches at the end of the accelerator using the FODO lattice. Different quadrupole strengths were used to find the best phase advance. Some bunches are kicked significantly; the maximum amplification is $`\widehat{A}=3.7`$. Without knowledge of the acceptance downstream and the size of the beam jitter, it is not possible to decide whether the amplification is acceptable. Within the linac, even a large jitter of $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=\sigma _x`$ does not lead to beam loss.

The first few bunches in each train are kicked particularly hard. This can be prevented by adding charge ramps. Towards the end of a train that fills even buckets, the bunch charge is slowly decreased from the nominal bunch charge to zero. At the same time one increases the charge in the odd buckets from zero to nominal, to keep the beam current constant. Thus the two consecutive trains practically overlap. On the right-hand side of Fig. 1, one can see that in this case all bunches are well confined, with a maximum amplification of $`\widehat{A}=2`$.

In the triplet lattices, the horizontal plane has a larger jitter amplification than the vertical one. But even the horizontal amplifications are significantly smaller than in the FODO lattice. Figure 2 shows the examples of a pulse without charge ramps, the amplification factors being 1.8 (T2) and 1.5 (T1). With charge ramps, they are reduced to 1.5 and 1.3. If the beam jitters significantly, the triplet lattices are markedly better than the FODO lattice.

## 5 Beam-Based Alignment

To keep operation as simple as possible, only one-to-one correction is considered. All elements are assumed to be scattered around a straight line following a normal distribution with $`\sigma =200\mu \mathrm{m}`$. In the FODO lattice, corrector dipoles are located after each quadrupole and beam position monitors (BPM) are placed in front of each quadrupole. In the triplet lattices, the corrector dipoles are positioned after the triplets and the BPMs are positioned in front and after the triplets. The correctors are used to bring the average beam position to zero in the BPMs. For each case, 100 different machines are simulated. The small growths of about $`0.5\%`$ are almost the same for all lattices.

## 6 Gradient and Phase Errors

The limit on the variation of the bunch energy is $`1\%`$ , much smaller than the single-bunch energy spread. In normal operation, the additional dispersive effects are therefore small. Static local energy errors are of more concern and are discussed here.

The initial and final beam energy can be well measured, and from this the average gradient can be derived. A local variation of the gradient is more difficult to detect. It will lead to a quadrupole strength that is not adapted to the beam energy. The worst case is too low a gradient in the first two structures, which are fed by one klystron. In the simulation, 100 different machines with a gradient in the first two structures that is too low by $`10\%`$ ($`20\%`$) are corrected with the beam. The emittance growth found after correction is $`1\%`$ ($`5\%`$) in the FODO lattice and $`0.5\%`$ ($`2\%`$) in T1, which seems to be sufficiently low. In T2, the value for a $`10\%`$ error is small, $`2\%`$, but for an error of $`20\%`$ it starts to be large: $`14\%`$. The transverse acceptance is reduced to $`3.8\sigma `$ ($`3.2\sigma `$) in the FODO lattice, $`4.7\sigma `$ ($`3.8\sigma `$) in T2 and to $`5.2\sigma `$ ($`5.1\sigma `$) in T1. Figure 3 shows the acceptance for a gradient error of $`20\%`$. For the FODO lattice, and to a lesser degree also for T2, one starts to worry about beam losses. However, an error of $`10\%`$ seems acceptable with all lattices. To be able to use the FODO lattice or T2, it necessary to measure the local gradient to better than $`10\%`$, to be able to correct the lattice accordingly. For T1, a precision of $`20\%`$ is sufficient.

The RF power produced by a klystron has a systematic phase variation during the pulse. One hopes to correct this effect globally, but local variations will remain. To estimate their importance, a linear change in phase of $`20^{}`$ over the pulse is assumed for the two structures driven by one klystron. The next pair has an exactly opposite phase variation. The resulting bunch-to-bunch energy spread is $`2\%`$, full width, which is not acceptable in the combiner ring; so a better compensation would be needed. In contrast, the emittance growth seems acceptable with about $`1.5\%`$ averaged over 100 machines for all lattices; the acceptance is hardly decreased. This phase variation does not cause significant transverse effects.

## 7 Energy Acceptance

During commissioning of the linac, large energy errors may occur. To study the sensitivity to this, 20 machines were simulated for each lattice in the following way: the linac is corrected with a nominal beam; then the incoming beam is assumed to be accelerated at a different gradient. Figure 4 shows the minimum transverse acceptance of the three lattices as a function of the RF-gradient error. The final energy error is about $`1.4`$ times larger than that of the RF-gradient, since the beam loading does not change. The FODO lattice and T1 have a comparable energy acceptance, whereas that of T2 is slightly smaller. By reducing the focal strength, the energy acceptance can be further improved at the cost of higher transverse wakefield effects. By reducing the strength of T2 to $`\mu _x=83^{}`$ and $`\mu _y=94^{}`$, the energy acceptance becomes larger than that of the FODO lattice. The maximum amplification of an initial jitter increases from 1.8 to 2.6 but is still smaller than the factor 3.7 in the FODO lattice. With each lattice, the linac energy acceptance is largely sufficient during normal operation.

## 8 Solenoid

PLACET has been modified to also simulate the effects of solenoids with acceleration. This allows to include the last two structures of the injector which are placed inside a solenoid. Two triplets are used to match the end of the solenoid to the T2 version of the drive-beam accelerator. The field of the solenoid is $`0.2\mathrm{T}`$ and its length is chosen such that a horizontal jitter of the nominal beam leads to a final horizontal offset. The end fields of the solenoid are modelled as thin lenses. Neither space charge nor the difference of the particle velocities from the speed of light are taken into account, but the wakefields are considered, in contrast to calculations done with PARMELA .

Figure 5 shows the amplification factor. While there is some contribution from the structures in the solenoid, the overall amplification seems still acceptable.

## 9 Conclusion

The simulations show that the lattices considered here can be acceptable; the best is the strong triplet lattice T1. The triplet lattice T2 seems to be a better choice than the FODO lattice. The FODO lattice is less expensive than T2, which is much cheaper than T1. To find the best compromise, more information is needed. For the FODO lattice the ramps have to be studied in more detail. For all lattices, the matching from the injector to the linac and from the linac to the combiner ring needs to be understood.


text:
# Fermionic Heisenberg Glasses with BCS Pairing Interaction

## Abstract

We have analyzed a fermionic infinite-ranged quantum Heisenberg spin glass with BCS coupling in real space in the presence of a magnetic field. It has been possible to locate the transition line between the normal paramagnetic phase (NP) and the phase where there is a long range order corresponding to pair formation in sites (PAIR). The nature of the transition line is also investigated. This transition ends at $`T_f`$, the transition temperature between NP and spin glass phase (SG) where the static approximation and replica symmetry ansatz are reliable.

Keywords: Heisenberg Spin glass

The competition between the superconducting and spin glass ordering has been reported in cuprete superconductor , heavy fermions  and conventional superconductors doped with magnetic impurities . Theoretical studies  in these later systems have been mainly interested in the calculation of the superconducting density of states by using a model composed by a conventional BCS interaction for the conducting electrons which interact with the localized magnetic impurities by a s–d exchange interaction.

In the present work the interplay between the mechanism responsible by the spin glass ordering and the BCS pairing among localized fermions of opposite spins has been investigated for the half filling case at mean field level. This has been done by using a Hamiltonian with a fermionic Heisenberg spin glass and a BCS pairing interaction in real space . This model has been obtained from Ref.  tracing out by perturbation the conducting fermionic degrees of freedom.

We consider the Hamiltonian given by Eq. (A20) of Ref.  in the presence of a magnetic field $`H_z`$. The problem is formulated in the path integral formalism where the spins are represented by bilinear combinations of Grassmann fields and random coupling among the spins are infinite ranged with a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance given by Ref. . The disorder is treated in the context of the replica method with an important difference compared with its classical counterparts: in the quantum case the diagonal component of the spin glass order parameter is no longer constrained to unity. In fact, the location of other transitions depends on this component even when the non-diagonal component is zero. The magnetic field in the $`z`$ direction separates the order parameters in two groups: transversal to the field and parallel to it . The transversal non-diagonal spin glass order parameter is taken as null. The static approximations and the replica symmetry ansatz is used for the remaining order parameters. This procedure is reliable up to $`T_f`$ (the transition temperature between the spin glass (SG) and the normal-paramagnetic (NP) phases) which moves down as the field strength increases. Therefore, the Grand Canonical potential (details will be given elsewhere ) can be found for the half-filling case as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\beta J^2(R^2+R_zQ_z)+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}|\eta |^2`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}Dw\mathrm{ln}(I_\beta )`$ (2)
$`I_\beta ={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}uDu{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}Dv[\mathrm{cosh}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta g}{2}}|\eta |)`$ (3)
$`+\mathrm{cosh}(\beta |\stackrel{}{h}|)]`$ (4)
where $`|\stackrel{}{h}|=J\sqrt{2Ru^2+\theta ^2}`$ and $`\theta =[v\sqrt{2(R_zQ_z)}`$ $`+w\sqrt{2Q_z}+H_z/(2J)]`$. In both equations $`Du=du\mathrm{exp}(u^2/2)/\sqrt{2\pi }`$ and $`\beta =1/T`$ and $`J`$ is given by Eq. (3) of Ref. .

In Eq. (2), $`|\eta |`$ is the PAIR order parameter, $`Q_z`$ and $`R_z`$ are, respectively, the non-diagonal and the diagonal component of the spin glass order parameter parallel to the field $`H_z`$ and $`R`$ is the diagonal component transversal to it. The saddle point equations for $`R`$, $`Q_z`$, $`R_z`$ and $`|\eta |`$ follow from Eq. (2).

A phase diagram can be obtained in $`T`$$`g`$ ($`g`$ is the pairing strength) space for different values of $`H_z`$ by solving the resulting equations for $`R`$, $`Q_z`$, $`R_z`$ and $`|\eta |`$ (see Fig. (1)).

If $`H_z=0`$, for high $`T`$ and small $`g`$ there is no long range order ($`|\eta |=0`$) that corresponds to NP phase. For high $`T`$ and $`g`$, $`|\eta |0`$ which corresponds to the PAIR phase. For the transition line, it has been found a crossover from a continuous behavior to a sharp one at $`(T_{tc},g_{tc})`$. The changing in the behavior of $`|\eta |`$ is shown in Fig. (2).

The parameter $`Q_z`$ is null and $`R=R_z`$ shows a crossover from continuous to discontinuous behavior as $`|\eta |`$ does. If $`H_z0`$, the PAIR phase only exists for larger values of $`g`$. The point ($`T_{tc}`$, $`g_{tc}`$) is moved up and the region where the transition is the first order type increases. The nature of ($`T_{tc}`$, $`g_{tc}`$) as a tricritical point has been confirmed by following the same procedure of Ref. . The behavior of $`R`$, $`R_z`$ and $`Q_z`$ changes strongly as shown in the Fig. (3).

The temperature $`T_f`$ can be found from the expansion of the Grand Canonical potential up to the quadratic term of the non-diagonal component transversal to the field of the spin glass order parameter . The condition that the coefficient of the quadratic term vanishes gives $`T_f/J=4R`$ (in the static approximation) which must be solved with the equations for the order parameters.

To conclude, this work has analyzed a fermionic Heisenberg spin glass model with a BCS pairing among local fermions which has been solved by reduction to a one site problem. A transition line separating the NP and PAIR phases has been obtained having a tricritical point depending on $`H_z`$ from where second order transition occurs for higher values of $`g`$ and first order transition occurs for lower values of $`g`$.

References

 H. Spille et al., J. Magn. Magn., 76/77 , 539(1988).

 F. C. Chou et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 2204(1995).

 D. Davidov et al., J. Phys. F.: Metal. Phys., 7 L47  (1977).

 M. J. Nass, K. Levin and G. S. Grest, Phys. Rev. B,  23 1111 (1981).

 S. G. Magalhães and Alba Theumann, Europ. Phys.  J. B, 9, 5 (1999).

 Alba Theumann, Phys. Rev. B, 33, 559 (1986).

 Yadin Y. Goldshmidt and Pik-Yin Lai, Phys. Rev. B,  43, 11434 (1991).

 S. G. Magalhães and A. A. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. B,  (accepted for publication).


text:
# Untitled Document

ON THE PHASE OF THE OFF-SHELL SCATTERING AMPLITUDES
V.A.Petrov

Division of Theoretical Physics, IHEP, Protvino, Russia

## Abstract

We prove that the phase of the partial wave amplitude does not depend on the off-shell 4-momentum squared of one of the scattered particles.

Let $`T_l(s)`$ is the partial wave amplitude for elastic scattering with angular momentum $`l`$ and c.m.s. energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. Assuming that there is no unphysical thresholds we consider “elastic region” in $`s`$, where unitarity takes a simple form

$$ImT_l(s)=\left|T_l(s)\right|^2.$$
(1)
Let now one of the four interacting particles is off-shell, and denote the corresponding amplitude by $`T_lT_l(s,q^2m^2)`$. If two particles (one final and one initial) are off mass-shell then $`T_l`$ is the corresponding amplitude. For simplicity we take all off-shell momenta below the mass-shell.

In this case for the same “elastic region” one can get from unitarity that

$$ImT_l=\left|T_l\right|^2,$$
(2)
$$ImT_l=ReT_lReT_l+ImT_lImT_l.$$
(3)
In terms of the following parametrisation

$$T_l=r_le^{i\phi _l},T_l=r_le^{i\phi _l},T_l=r_le^{i\phi _l}$$

we have from Eqs.(1), (2) and (3)

$$\mathrm{sin}\phi _l=r_l,$$

$$r_l\mathrm{sin}\phi _l=r_l^2,$$

$$\mathrm{sin}\phi _l=\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _l\mathrm{sin}\phi _l+\mathrm{sin}\phi _l\mathrm{cos}\phi _l\mathrm{cos}\phi _l,$$

whereof we came to the equality:

$$\phi _l=\phi _l.$$

That is the main result of this note:

onefold off-shell extension of the partial wave scattering amplitude in the “elastic region” in the c.m.s. energy does not change the phase. In particular

$$T_l(s,q^2m^2)=r_l(s,q^2m^2)T_l(s),$$

where $`r_l(s,q^2)`$ is a real-analytic function in $`s`$ and has no elastic threshold singularity.

We also have to stress that for the “full” amplitude,

$`T(s,\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta },q^2)`$ $`|`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi \sqrt{s}}{\sqrt{s4m^2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}(2l+1)T_lP_l(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }),`$
$`q^2`$ $``$ $`m^2`$ (4)
its phase generally depends on $`q^2`$-value.

It is a pleasure to thank A.Martin and T.T.Wu for useful discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The system of a rotating black hole - magnetized accretion disk is an interesting object where the rotational energy of the black hole can be extracted along the field lines supported by the accretion disk. Recently, there has been increasing interest in the possibility that such a system with a stellar black hole can be the central engine  for powering gamma - ray bursts via the Blandford-Znajek process originally proposed for AGN. The Blandford-Znajek power for a black hole with mass $`M`$ and angular momentum $`J(=\stackrel{~}{a}M^2)`$ is given by

$`P_{BZ}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{a}^2M^2B_H^2f(h),`$ (1)
which is estimated to be consistent with the observed cosmological gamma - ray bursts provided a strong magnetic field $`B_H10^{15}`$G is on the black hole.

Since the power depends on the angular momentum parameter $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and the black hole mass $`M`$, the evolution of the black hole during the powering process may also be important for the time evolution of the power, which, in principle, is related to the complicated temporal structure of the gamma - ray spectrum. In the simple model proposed to explain the temporal structure, one of the important parameters is the evolution of the power in time.

The evolution of a rotating black hole in the Blandford-Znajek process, without the effects of an accretion disk but with a given magnetic field on the horizon, has been discussed in detail by Okamoto . While earlier discussions on the effects of the accretion disk can be found in Park and Vishniac, the effect of the accreting materials on the rotation of the black hole has continued to be an interesting subject.

In this paper, we will discuss the effects of an accretion disk, in which the magnetic torque is supposed to dominate the accretion rate, on black hole evolution. The magnetic field on the disk determines not only the accretion rates of energy and angular momentum into the black hole but also the rates of energy and angular momentum losses from the black hole since it is related to the magnetic field on the horizon. We suppose a very simple - minded model for a black hole - accretion disk, in which the transition region is simplified to a region in which nothing happens (no magnetic coupling between the horizon and the disk, for example) except the flow of accreting matter. The accretion disk is assumed to satisfy the condition for the axisymmetric solution proposed by Blandford in 1976 for an accretion disk in a force-free magnetosphere. Then, we can find an analytic relation between the magnetic fields on the horizon and the inner edge of the accretion disk. However, since there is insufficient information on the origin or the strength of the disk magnetic field, we take it as a parameter for the numerical calculations. Although the transition region between the horizon and the inner edge of the accretion disk is quite complicated, we try to infer some of the qualitative features of black - hole evolution from this simplified analysis.

## 2 Blandford-Znajek power and accretion rate

We consider the simplified system of a black hole - accretion disk. The environment around the system is assumed to be a force-free magnetosphere with axial symmetry. The accretion disk is known to be a very complicated object compared to the black hole which is mathematically well defined. Provided with the mass ($`M`$), the angular momentum ($`J`$), and the charge ($`Q`$) of a black hole, we can calculate its various physical quantities: for example, the horizon radius ($`r_H`$) and the stable orbit of a test particle. However, the accretion disk is a rather complicated object with a number of physical parameters which define the accretion disk. Among them are the shape parameters (thickness of the disk, for example), the density, the pressure, the temperature, and the viscosity parameter ($`\alpha `$). While the magnetic field on the horizon is assumed to be well ordered , the magnetic field on the disk can be decomposed into ordered and disordered parts. For an accretion disk where the ordered magnetic field dominates the disordered magnetic fields, we adopt axial symmetric and the steady - state solution obtained by Blandford for a force-free magnetosphere .

The outward current density along the disk, $`J_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}`$, is proportional to the toroidal component of the magnetic field on the disk, $`B_\varphi `$:

$`2\pi J_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}=B_\varphi `$ (2)
where cylindrical coordinates $`(\stackrel{~}{\omega },\varphi ,z)`$ are used. The $`z`$direction is chosen to be perpendicular to the disk. $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ is the cylindrical radius from the origin.

The torque exerted by an annular ring with width $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ 111For a nonrelativistic discussion of the disk, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ is replaced by a radial distance $`r`$ on the disk. due to the Lorentz force is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }T=r\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi rJ_rB_z\mathrm{\Delta }r.`$ (3)
For a steady - state accretion disk with a surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, angular momentum conservation can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }T=\mathrm{\Sigma }v_r{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2\mathrm{\Omega })}{r}}2\pi r\mathrm{\Delta }r=\dot{M}_+{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2\mathrm{\Omega })}{r}}\mathrm{\Delta }r,`$ (4)
where the torque due to the shear force of differential rotation is assumed to be negligible. The accretion rate in the above equation is defined by

$$\dot{M}_+=\mathrm{\Sigma }v_r2\pi r.$$
(5)
From Eqs.(3) and (4), using the Keplerian angular velocity, $`(r^2\mathrm{\Omega })/r=r\mathrm{\Omega }_{disk}/2`$, we get

$`\dot{M}_+=2rB_\varphi B_z/\mathrm{\Omega }_{disk}.`$ (6)
Adopting the axisymmetric solution,

$`B_\varphi =2r\mathrm{\Omega }_{disk}B_z/c,`$ (7)
we get the accretion rate given by

$`\dot{M}_+=4r^2B_z^2/c.`$ (8)
In this simple schematic model, the poloidal current flowing into the horizon is responsible for the toroidal magnetic field on the horizon and on the inner edge of the accretion disk. If there is no current source or sink in the transition region, current conservation implies that the total current flow, $`I`$, onto the black hole should go into the inner edge ($`r_{in}`$) of the accretion disk. Then, Ampere’s law implies

$$2MB_\varphi ^H(\theta =\pi /2)=4\pi I=\stackrel{~}{\omega }(r_{in})B_\varphi ^{disk}(r_{in}).$$
(9)
On the other hand, from the boundary conditions on the horizon in the optimal case,

$$B_\varphi ^H=\mathrm{\Omega }_HMB_H,$$
(10)
and on an accretion disk with angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$,

$$B_\varphi ^{disk}=2\mathrm{\Omega }_DrB_z,$$
(11)
we get the relation between the poloidal magnetic fields on the horizon and the disk’s inner edge :

$$\frac{B_z(r_{in})}{B_H}=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r_{in}c^2}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{2}\frac{GM}{r_Hc^2}\frac{r_{in}}{\stackrel{~}{\omega }},$$
(12)
which implies that the poloidal magnetic field on the horizon is larger than that on the inner edge of the disk222The magnetic braking power from the disk in connection with the Blandford-Znajek power from the black hole has been discussed recently by Li and by Lee, Brown, and Wijers.. A similar observation has been discussed by Ghosh and Abramowicz by using the field configuration motivated by MacDonald. However, it is not clear yet whether these field configurations can be realized by the conventional accretion dynamo.

Using Eqs.(6) and (12), we can write the accretion rate in terms of the magnetic field on the horizon,

$`\dot{M}_+={\displaystyle \frac{Mr_{in}^3}{\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2r_H^2}}M^2\stackrel{~}{a}^2B_H^2.`$ (13)
The Blandford-Znajek power is given by

$`P_{BZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{a}^2M^2B_H^2f(h),`$ (14)
which can be written in terms of the accretion rate in Eq. (13) as

$`P_{BZ}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2r_H^2}{Mr_{in}^3}}\dot{M}_+f(h),`$ (15)
where

$`f(h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+h^2}{h^2}}[(h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}})\mathrm{arctan}h1],`$ (16)
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{H}},H=1+\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{a}^2}.`$ (17)
The horizon radius is $`r_H=HM`$.

## 3 Energy and angular momentum accretions into a black hole

The physics in the transition region may be quite complicated such that it is not certain how much energy and angular momentum can be accreted into the black hole horizon. It depends on the magnetic field and also on the particular types of accretions. In this work with a simple schematic model of a black hole and an accretion disk, it is assumed that the inner edge of the accretion disk is the last stable orbit defined by

$`r_{in}=ZM,`$ (18)
where

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`3+Z_2\sqrt{(3Z_1)(3+Z_1+2Z_2)},`$ (19)
$`Z_1`$ $`=`$ $`1+(1\stackrel{~}{a}^2)^{\frac{1}{3}}[(1+\stackrel{~}{a})^{\frac{1}{3}}+(1\stackrel{~}{a})^{\frac{1}{3}}],`$ (20)
$`Z_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3\stackrel{~}{a}^2+Z_1^2}.`$ (21)
It is assumed that the energy of a particle in the last stable orbit is accreted into the horizon without any radiation outward. The specific energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ (energy per unit rest mass, $`E=m\stackrel{~}{E}`$) at $`r_{in}`$ is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{E}={\displaystyle \frac{Z^22Z+\stackrel{~}{a}\sqrt{Z}}{Z\sqrt{Z^23Z+2\stackrel{~}{a}\sqrt{Z}}}}`$ (22)
One can see that the accreted energy becomes smaller if the black hole is rotating: $`\stackrel{~}{E}(\stackrel{~}{a}=0)=0.94\stackrel{~}{E}(\stackrel{~}{a}=1)=0.58`$. The rest of the specific energy is assumed to be dissipated during the accreting processes. It is interesting to note that for advection - dominated accretion, the sepcific energy accreted should be taken to be larger than $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$.

The specific angular momentum ($`l=m\stackrel{~}{l}`$) at the last stable orbit, which is carried into the horizon, is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{l}=M𝒵_l(\stackrel{~}{a}),`$ (23)
where

$$𝒵_l(\stackrel{~}{a})=\frac{Z^22\stackrel{~}{a}\sqrt{Z}+\stackrel{~}{a}^2}{\sqrt{Z(Z^23Z+2\stackrel{~}{a}\sqrt{Z})}}.$$
(24)
In this simplified work, we assume that there is nothing particular between the horizon and the inner endge of the disk execpt the accretion flow, although recent works show that energy and angular momentum extraction from a black hole onto a disk is possible, which makes $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ smaller.

## 4  Evolution of a black hole

The evolution rates of the black hole mass ($`\dot{M})`$ and the angular momentum ($`\dot{J}`$) are determined both by the accreted energy and the angular momentum, which increase the mass and the angular momentum, and by the Blandford-Znajek power in the opposite direction. From energy conservation, we get

$`\dot{M}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{BZ}+\dot{M}_+\stackrel{~}{E}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{P}_E)\dot{M}_+,`$ (26)
where

$`P_{BZ}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{M}_+\stackrel{~}{P}_E,`$ (27)
$`\stackrel{~}{P}_E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(h)H^2}{4Z}}[1+(\stackrel{~}{a}/Z)^2(1+2/Z)].`$ (28)
Angular momentum conservation leads to

$`\dot{J}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{BZ}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_F}}+\dot{M}_+\stackrel{~}{l}.`$ (29)
The first term on the right hand side is the angular momentum loss rate due to the Blandford-Znajek process, and the second term is the accreted angular momentum from the disk. Equation(29) can be written as

$`\dot{J}`$ $`=`$ $`M\dot{M}_+(𝒵_l\stackrel{~}{P}_l),`$ (30)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{P}_l={\displaystyle \frac{fH^3}{\stackrel{~}{a}Z}}[1+(\stackrel{~}{a}/Z)^2(1+2/Z)].`$ (31)
The evolution of the angular momentum parameter $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ can be obtained from the angular momentum evolution as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{J}}{J}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M}}{M}}`$ (32)
or

$`\dot{J}`$ $`=`$ $`(2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M}}{M}}\stackrel{~}{a}+\dot{\stackrel{~}{a}})M^2.`$ (33)
Then, using Eq. (26), we get

$`\dot{\stackrel{~}{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M_+}}{M}}[(𝒵_l\stackrel{~}{P}_l)2\stackrel{~}{a}(\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{P}_E)],`$ (34)
where the accretion rate is given by

$$\dot{M}_+=\frac{Z}{H^2[1+(\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{Z})^2(1+\frac{2}{Z})]}M^2\stackrel{~}{a}^2B_H^2.$$
(35)
Since the system of a black hole - accretion disk we are considering for the central engine of the gamma - ray bursts is supposed to emerge in the final stage of the binary - merging processes like neutron star - neutron star and black hole - neutron star, the mass of the accretion disk should not be much greater than the solar mass and the lifetime ($`\tau `$) of an accretion disk with appreciable pressure for a strong magnetic field cannot be of an astronomical scale. From the large accretion rate due to the strong magnetic field, is assumed to be less than a few thousand seconds. Since the presence of an accretion disk with an appreciable pressure or magnetic field is essential for the magnetic field on the horizon, the evolution of the accretion disk (lifetime with appreciable pressure in it) might be also responsible for the evolutions of the magnetic field on the disk and $`B_H`$.

For the numerical calculations in this work, we tried to incorporate the effects of mass loss from the disk into the the time dependence of the magnetic field in the following form :

$$B_H^2=B_H^2(0)D(t),$$
(36)
where we take

$`D(t)=1({\displaystyle _0^t}\dot{M}_+)/M_{}.`$ (37)
We take $`D(t)`$ to be vanishing as the total accreting mass becomes a solar mass, which is supposed be a typical mass for an accretion disk emerging out of binary - merging processes.

## 5  Results and discussion

The evolution of the black hole is calculated with $`M(0)=3M_{}`$ and $`B_H(0)=10^{15}`$G and is shown in Fig. 1 for mass ($`M`$) and in Fig. 2 for angular momentum ($`\stackrel{~}{a}`$). When we take the initial angular momentum parameter to be $`\stackrel{~}{a}(0)=1`$, the mass of the black hole increases up to $`3.6M_{}`$. Compared to the initial mass sum of $`4M_{}`$, $`10\%`$ of the rest - mass energy of the system is extracted by the Blandford-Znajek process, which is about the same fraction of energy that can be taken from the black hole only. The interesting observation is that the rotation of the black hole does not stop, $`\stackrel{~}{a}0.82`$, even after the disk disappears (equivalently, no magnetic field on the black hole or no Blandford-Znajek process). For a system of only a black hole with a constant magnetic field on it, the angular momentum decreases rapidly within a few thousand seconds, and in the optimal process, the fraction of rotational energy extracted is about 9%. This implies that the energy extracted from the black hole in the black hole - accretion disk system is not only from the black hole’s initial rotational energy but also from the energy accreted from the disk. The Blandford-Znajek power shown in Fig. 3 drops very rapidly within $`1000`$s, as expected, and the pattern of the evolution with time is similar to the case with the black hole alone.

In this paper, we formulated the evolutions of the black hole mass and angular momentum, taking into account the flow of accreting matter from a strongly magnetized disk. Adopting the axisymmetric solution suggested by Blandford, we got analytic fomulae for the evolutions and could see that the angular momentum accreted from the disk is comparable to the amount of angular momentum extracted by the Blandford-Znajek process. a numerical calculation demonstrated that the accreted angular momentum was large enough to keep the black hole rotating rapidly while the Blandford-Znajek process was working.

Since we considered a very simplified situation, there are several issues to be discussed in the future. For the numerical calculation, we assumed a specific time dependence of the magnetic field on the disk, which was designed to be vanishing as the disk mass decreased. Although we think the general feature of this assumption may not be totally wrong, at least, for the isolated black hole - accretion disk system, we need more detailed analysis to find the relation between the magnetic field and the disk properties. Also, for a realistic accretion disk, we should consider the effects of the disordered magnetic field, the turbulence, and/or advection - dominated flow. It should be also noted that there are several works demonstrating some difficulties in building up a strong poloidal magnetic feld on the disk by means of conventional accretion and dynamo processes. In this work, we have not taken into account the recent observations that negative energy flow out to the disk from the black hole along the accreting flow is possible when there is a strong enough magnetic field in the transition region. That, together with a relativistic generalization of the Blandford solution and the accretion formulae used in this work, would be an interesting problem for future work.

## 6 acknowledgments

We would like to thank Insu Yi for useful discussions. This work is supproted in part by the Ministry of Education (BSRI-98-2441), a Hanyang Uiversity grant in 1999, and the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (Grant No. 1999-2-112-003-5).

Caption

Figure 1. The evolutions of a black hole with $`M(0)=3M_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}(0)=1`$

for a black hole only(solid line) and for a black hole - accretion

disk system(dotted line).

Figure 2. The evolution of the angular momentum in units of $`M^2`$.

Figure 3. The time dependences of the Blandford-Znajek power.